Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS

Ordered,
That the Amendment to Standing Order 243 (Joint committees on petitions) relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 243, line 43, at end add:
(4) If any member of the Committee of this House is prevented from continuing his attendance, the Joint Committee may, with the consent of all parties, continue its sittings in his absence, provided that the number of the Committee of this House be not less than two and that the Joint Committee report accordingly to this House at its next meeting; but if the consent of any party is withheld, the Joint Committee shall adjourn and shall not resume its sittings in the absence of such member without leave of this House,—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to Clyde Navigation, presented by Mr. Noble; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

International Indian Ocean Expedition

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to issue a detailed programme of the scientific research and discovery in oceanography which is now in progress by the international fleet, including the£800,000 royal research ship "Discovery", indicating the differences in scientific apparatus in each ship; and

what is the necessity for the concentration of a large fleet in the Indian Ocean instead of exploring the North Sea and fishing grounds further north.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Yes, Sir, I am arranging for a copy of the United Kingdom scientific programmes during the International Indian Ocean Expedition to be forwarded to the hon. and learned Member.
There are some 40 vessels, owned by the 12 nations, but I have no information as to the differences in the scientific apparatus they carry.
Overall progress is best promoted by a co-ordinated study of one ocean, and the Indian Ocean was chosen by international scientific bodies. This does not mean, of course, that the northern fishing grounds are being neglected.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Civil Lord for that Answer, but may I ask whether he agrees that this great international effort provides a splendid opportunity for bringing into harmony and co-operative work fishing fleets which have recently not always been in harmony? If they were in harmony, would not this be for the benefit of the British nation and the consumers of fish in this country?
Alternatively, would not it be a good idea to divide this gigantic fleet into two parts so that one part could explore the northern waters while the other part explored the southern waters, allowing them to issue a joint report which would be of value to the fishing industry and consumers of fish throughout the world?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As someone who was trained as a scientist, I would say that this venture in the Indian Ocean brings harmony in scientific research rather than harmony between fishing fleets. There is continuing research, particularly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into the fishing grounds and scientific problems in the northern area.

H.M.S. "Belfast"

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are his plans for H.M.S. "Belfast".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As I informed the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) last week, H.M.S. "Belfast" is to be placed in reserve and will. I hope, remain available for a number of years with the Royal Navy.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend assure me that he does not mean in reserve awaiting disposal? Does he agree that, in view of our great shortage of cruisers, this vessel has several useful years of operational life ahead of her?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I completely agree.

Shipbuilding (Orders)

Mr. Milne: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty will now take to help shipbuilding areas of high unemployment by placing orders within these districts.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We have just placed orders for three tankers. These orders have been placed with firms in the North-East of England as a result of competitive tenders. Firms in Ulster, Merseyside and the Clyde also tendered. When inviting tenders for these ships, we had intended ordering only two but we have now found it possible to order a third ship.
In addition, we have just invited tenders from firms in all the major shipbuilding areas for the construction of two Fleet replenishment ships. We had intended ordering only one ship this year, but, again, we have now found it possible to order an additional one.

Mr. Milne: The decision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has given considerable pleasure in the North-East, but will he bear in mind that the North-East is not merely a land of three rivers and that, in addition to the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, there is also the River Blyth, and we are situated in a development district? Will he keep this in mind when considering future action? Also, may we take it that it will not be a precedent that every time Viscount Hailsham visits the North-East we shall receive orders for ships the day before?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I note what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question. Unfortunately, most shipbuilding areas are also areas of high unemployment, so it is not just confined to the North-East. On the second point, it was the merit of the shipbuilders in the North-East and their highly competitive tendering which secured this order, on which they should be congratulated.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: While competitive tendering is, perhaps, not always possible, will my hon. Friend agree that, in the main, it is a very good thing in that it leads to efficiency and gives an area of high unemployment an incentive, through its shipyards and their efficiency, to help itself? Will he further agree that the winning of a tender reflects enormous credit, confidence and courage on the shipbuilders of the Tyne in the 10 years in that they have modernised their yards?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree. I think that the next challenge to the shipbuilding areas is the opportunity they will have to compete for the orders for the two replenishment ships whose value will be about that of the orders for the tankers.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to put out to tender the type of naval contracts referred to in his letter of 27th January, 1963, to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In my letter of 27th January I assured the hon. Member that a particular shipbuilding firm in his constituency would continue to be given opportunities to tender for Admiralty work for which its facilities were considered suitable. I regret that I cannot forecast when we shall be inviting such tenders.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing reply? In view of the fact that earlier this afternoon he said that he has brought forward other ships much sooner than expected, will he not give an assurance that he will consider bringing forward this type of contract this year rather than waiting till next year?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This particular shipyard is better suited for the small type of ship. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said when considering our programme.

Recruiting

Mr. John Hall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent, and in what branches of the Navy, recruiting has fallen short of requirements.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In the first 10 months of the recruiting year 1962–63 the entry of R.N. ratings and R.M. other ranks was 6,250 which was 200 or 3 per cent. short of the overall target for the period. Recruiting for a number of branches was fully up to our needs but there were some shortfalls in the seaman, communications, naval airman, naval air mechanic, sick berth and steward branches.

Mr. Hall: Can my hon. Friend give me any idea when these shortfalls are likely to be made good? Is the present trend of recruiting sufficiently satisfactory for him to think that these difficulties will be overcome in the near future?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have looked at our whole recruiting organisation. We have improved our recruiting offices, or careers offices, as we call them, by putting them in better places and modernising them. The whole aspect of our recruiting has been re-examined, and I hope that we shall meet our target for the future.

Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty is recruiting a sufficient number for the electrical branches?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to have notice of that supplementary question, because it really breaks down into the artificer apprentices in various branches. This has been a problem in the past. At present, young boys are coming forward in numbers because they realise the value of electrical skills, not only in the Royal Navy, but in civilian life thereafter.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the policy of the Government to spread the work on the Polaris-type submarines as widely as possible, so as to give experience in the construction of these larger submarines at least to the three shipyards which are used to building conventional submarines.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) last Wednesday.

Mr. Digby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of spreading both

the necessary "know-how" and the machine tools, particularly in view of the fact that these yards are on the North-West Coast and in the Greenock area? Is there any hope of future orders for conventional submarines coming to these yards?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, probably not from the Royal Navy, but no doubt there will be keen competitive tendering for the two "Oberon" submarines, orders for which we are placing on behalf of the Australian Government in the near future.

Sir J. Maitland: What steps are being taken to ensure that when these orders are accepted there is considerable pressure placed on the firms concerned to build these submarines as quickly as possible?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: One of the advantages of competitive tendering is that the firms well realise that if they do not get on with the job they may exceed the price and show no profit on the work that they are undertaking.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will spread the orders for new surface ships and for Polaris and other submarines over major shipbuilding yards where redundancy is heaviest.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It has been the policy for the past two-and-a-half years to place shipbuilding orders on the results of competitive tender whenever possible. In practice nearly all such orders have gone to shipbuilding firms in areas of unemployment. In the Polaris programme technical considerations and delivery dates will be of over-riding importance.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that Harland and Wolff's yard, as a result of recent modernisation with prefabrication sheds and particularly heavy cranes, is capable of building a Polaris-type submarine as rapidly and as cheaply as any yard in the country? Also, it has recent experience of working round the clock on naval orders.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have paid two visits to that yard and I am aware of its modernisation and the results. I would remind my hon. Friend that, although


naturally one would wish that it won more orders, Ulster has had£27 million worth of Royal Navy orders in the past 10 years.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman did not reply to the latter part of the supplementary question about other submarines. Are we to assume that the Admiralty is not proceeding with any other submarines because of the Polaris programme?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: What I said was that we were unlikely to order further conventional submarines other than those which have already been announced.

Commander Courtney: If, as my hon. Friend has said, delivery dates are of overriding importance, will he seek the co-operation of hon. Members opposite in trying to persuade the trade unions concerned to work three shifts?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that, in a national plan of this sort, we shall have the co-operation of everybody on both sides of the House to try to get this programme completed.

Mr. Rankin: Am I right in saying that the hon. Gentleman last Wednesday assured me that competitive tendering was not now the only method of ordering these new ships? Am I to take it that he is making a real attempt, as I thought he said last Wednesday, to spread the work among those areas which need it, such as Clydeside?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This Question refers to Polaris submarines. If we can keep to that—

Mr. Rankin: Not just to Polaris.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry. The earlier part of the Question refers to spreading
the orders for new surface ships".
We go out for competitive tenders, and it depends on the efficiency of the firms whether they win those tenders.

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what increase in staff at Admiralty headquarters is expected as a result of the decision to build a fleet of Polaris submarines.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There will undoubtedly be a need for increase, but I cannot give any precise estimate just yet.

Mr. Willis: Once again could the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Polaris

programme will be carried out without interfering with the programme for more conventional vessels? Is he aware that we on this side of the House at least prefer to proceed with the conventional vessels rather than with Polaris?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is our intention to do exactly the same. We fully realise the importance of conventional operations to Her Majesty's Navy.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Civil Lard of the Admiralty whether it is intended to develop a new type of nuclear reactor to power the British Polaris submarines, or whether it is intended to use one similar to that being installed in the smaller and second Dreadnought class hunter-killer submarine.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The reactors in these submarines will be similar to that in H.M.S. "Valiant."

Mr. Digby: Will the Admiralty try to impress upon the Atomic Energy Authority the importance of pressing on with nuclear reactors and of paying rather more attention to them and rather less to the development of very costly power stations?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly draw that point to the attention of the Authority.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it will be necessary to build other naval vessels to co-operate with Polaris submarines; and what kind of new ships and naval aircraft will be necessary for this purpose.

Mr. C. Ian On-Ewing: According to our present information and plans, none, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Civil Lord not noticed these extra claims, since not only will there be the cost of the Polaris submarines but there will be needed other vessels—escort vessels and other vessels to protect the Polaris submarines? Does he not think there will be added to the present total cost a considerable cost of extra expenditure.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not concerned with the operational problems of other nations. I am concerned with the


operational problems of this nation. We are not at present planning to build support ships for these submarines.

Mr. McMaster: Is any research taking place into the question of the Hawker 1154 multi-jet and vertical take-off aircraft for use by the Navy?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That would really be a question for the Ministry of Aviation, because it acts as our agent in this matter.

Submarine Movements (Detection)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent he is satisfied with the progress made by the Royal Navy in its plans for discovering the movements of Russian submarines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: This is a problem to which I can assure the hon. Member that we devote great care and effort; but I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any statement about our progress.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that recently the publicity department of the Admiralty issued a statement saying that a great deal of progress had been made by Coastal Command in detecting submarines? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made yesterday by a Russian admiral that the Russians can now detect Polaris submarines? Does he not think that my 1968 all this Polaris business will be obsolete?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I cannot be responsible for Russian admirals' statements. We are making considerable progress in the detection of submarines, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that detecting a submarine which is proceeding under water, which is moving and thus making noise, is a very different question from detecting a submarine which is lying, perhaps absolutely stationary, very deep on the ocean bed. Because we are making progress on the detection of the former does not mean we are anywhere near solving the problem of detecting the latter.

Dockyard, Malta

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men he has

discharged from Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta this year; and what further discharges are anticipated in the near future.

Mr. C. Ian On-Ewing: Discharges resulting from the decision to run down the naval base over the next four years began on 4th January this year and number 80 to date. By 31st March this year a further 10 will be discharged. These figures exclude normal wastage and voluntary retirement.

Mr. Hynd: If the Royal Navy has no further use for this dockyard, is the hon. Gentleman exploring the possibility of an alternative use in view of the absence of other work in Malta? Is he considering the possibility, for example, of using it as a training centre, or as a naval base or in some other way?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps I could clear up the slight confusion in terms. In the Question, the hon. Gentleman uses the term "Her Majesty's Dockyard". The dockyard is no longer Her Majesty's. It is now administered by Messrs. Bailey. That is why in the reply I referred to "the naval base". There is a continuing need for the naval base, although there will be a run-down, as I forecast. I will examine the other points which the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the transfer of the dockyard to Messrs. Bailey a tacit undertaking was given that there would be no change until the dockyard was ready to be used as a commercial undertaking? As these changes are taking place, am I to understand that that undertaking is being broken by the Minister?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are a number of Questions later on the Order Paper about this issue. Perhaps I could leave it until we come to them.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what compensation is paid to men discharged from Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Very few, if any, established staff will be discharged. We have arranged greatly improved rates of gratuity for unestablished staff. A man with 15 years service will get 25 weeks pay, a man with 25 years service will get


85 weeks pay. I will, with permission, he saying that the only people discharged circulate the details in the OFFICIAL in future will be unestablished staff? REPORT.

Mr. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman says that few people will be discharged. Is

GRATUITIES FOR LOCALLY-ENTERED UNESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL AND NON-INDUSTRIAL STAFF


Old Scheme (In force until 31st October, 1962.)





Qualifying Service
…
…
5 years


Amount payable:—





For each year's service up to 5
…
…
one week's pay


For each year's service over 5 up to 10
…
…
two weeks' pay


For each year's service over 10
…
…
four weeks' pay


Maximum amount payable
…
…
one year's pay


New Scheme (In force on and after 1st November, 1962)





Qualifying Service
…
…
1 year


Amount payable:—





For each year's service up to 5
…
…
one week's pay


For each year's service over 5
…
…
four weeks' pay


Maximum amount payable
…
…
no limit

Comparison of gratuities payable under the two schemes:—


Years of Service
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30


Gratuities in number of weeks' pay










Old Scheme
…
0
0
0
0
5
15
35
52
52
52


New Scheme
…
1
2
3
4
5
25
45
65
85
105

Example: Skilled labourer with 30 years' service receiving£7 a week wages.

Gratuity under old scheme
…
…
…
…
…
£364


Gratuity under new scheme
…
…
…
…
…
£735

Established Staff

On "abolition of office" established employees are entitled to pensions or gratuities on the same scales as apply to U.K. Staff. Very few established staff will, however, be affected.

Bailey (Malta) Ltd. (Contracts)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the arrangements under which Admiralty vessels are sent to Bailey's, Malta, for repair in the dockyard have been stopped.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why certain Admiralty work included in a programme covering the period to June, 1963, and notified to Bailey (Malta) Limited on 14th December, 1962, has been withdrawn at short notice and without any reason having been given to Bailey (Malta) Limited.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what orders have been withdrawn for refitting and slipping naval vessels at the Malta dockyard of Bailey (Malta) Limited.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No existing contracts have been cancelled. This in-

he saying that the only people discharged in future will be unestablished staff?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Mainly, yes.

Following are the details:

terruption in the placing of new work has been necessitated by difficulties which have arisen over the operation of the Malta Dockyard, about which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will be making a full statement to the House during the next few days.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my hon. Friend aware that, by taking the action which he has taken of seeking to strangle the source of supply of work into Bailey's dockyard in Malta, he has struck a very severe blow against the continuity of employment there which has been kept by the successor firm, Bailey (Malta) Ltd., at between 5,000 and 6,000 men ever since it took it over four years ago when the Admiralty felt that it was unable to continue to operate it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I concede some of what my hon. Friend says in his supplementary question, but, to put it in perspective, Bailey's has undertaken in


recent years over£3 million worth of naval work each year. In this instance, the interruption concerns only one or two small ships, so that the difference to the naval repair load will not be marked.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Colonial Office is so intent on pursuing this undignified and spiteful campaign with Bailey (Malta) Ltd. that the welfare of the people of Malta is now entirely a secondary consideration with it? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary whether the normal working arrangements between the Admiralty and Bailey (Malta) Ltd. can be resumed forthwith?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot accept the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question. My right hon. Friend certainly puts first and foremost the welfare of the people of Malta. I will certainly draw his attention to the second part of the supplementary question.

Mr. Brockway: Without wishing to make any comment about Messrs. Bailey, may I ask whether the Admiralty would rot agree that it owes an extraordinary debt of gratitude to the people of Malta for their stand during the last war? Does he not recall President Eisenhower saying that their resistance had meant that the war had ended three months earlier than it would otherwise have done? In view of that debt to the Maltese people, will the Civil Lord take into account the unemployment which will be caused among those people, and suggest to his colleagues that there should be the alternative of a trading estate upon that island and of the use of that manificent frontage, now exclusively used by the military, for the development of tourism? Malta could become a new Nice if that were done.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree that not only the Admiralty but the nation owes a debt to the island for its contribution in the last war. On the second part of that supplementary, I will certainly report the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the House will await the statement in a few days.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very deep concern

on both sides of the House at the certain consequences of social and economic disturbances in the life of Malta by the cancellation of these contracts? Is he further aware that we find it difficult to understand why the cancellation should have taken place in advance of any longterm decision on the future of the base? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true, as has been reported, that the Government are encouraging the Government of Malta to nationalise these facilities, and if so, what financial assistance do they propose to give the Maltese Government in such a case?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must underline the point that I made, that this is not a cancellation. It is an interruption and affects only a very small part—one or two small ships—of the total naval load. On the second point, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will await the statement.

Pensions

Commander Pursey: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the increases in the ordinary Armed Forces widows' pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for the over-60 widow of a captain, Royal Navy, a chief petty officer and an able seaman, pensioned under the 1950 code, where the husband gave full-time service since 31st August, 1950, bereavement occurred after 4th November, 1958, and rates drawn are maximum rates.

Mr. C. Ian Off-Ewing: If the widow is under the age of 70 the increases are£47 1s. 0d.,£9 3s. 0d. and£4 16s. 0d. a year respectively. If the widow is aged 70 or more the respective increases are£67 ls. Od.,£28 1s. 0d. and£14 11s. 0d. a year.
These figures are based on 27 years' service in the case of the chief petty officer and 22 in that of the able seaman.

Commander Pursey: When will the Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence produce a worth-while pension scheme for the widows of other ranks and give them more pennies, before giving large increases to senior officers' widows?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the schemes of 1959 and 1962 gave the same


percentage increase to widows of officers and of ratings. We are looking at this matter with sympathy.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In spite of the recent increase in Service pensions for widows, is not my hon. Friend aware that they are still worse off than they were in 1952, taking into account the increased cost of living? Would it not be a good thing to make an adjustment for these old people? It would cost only about£300.000 a year to rectify this serious situation.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We all sympathise with these widows, but it is not a matter which could be done unilaterally. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

Commander Pursey: asked the Civil Lard of the Admiralty if he will state the increases in the ordinary Armed Forces pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for an over-60 captain, Royal Navy, a chief petty officer and an able seaman, pensioned under the 1950 code, where the rates drawn are maximum rates.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: If under 70 years of age the captain would receive an increase of£141 2s. 0d. a year; the C.P.O.£27 7s. 0d. a year; and the A.B.£100—I am sorry,£10 4s. 0d. a year.
If aged 70 or more the captain would receive an increase of£161 2s. 0d. a year; the C.P.O.£47 7s. 0d. a year, and the A.B.£30 4s. 0d. a year.
These figures are based on 27 years' service in the case of the C.P.O. and 22 years' service in that of the A.B.

Commander Pursey: I am glad the Civil Lord corrected the figure of£100 to£10 in his Answer.
When will the Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence produce a pensions increase scheme for other ranks on the 1919 1½d. per day pension per year of service, who have received no increases in the basic pension paid since the last war? When are we going to deal with this question of the ½d. scheme introduced by William IV in 1831?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question about the 1919 pension. I think he has selected the case of an able seaman with 22 years' service. Owing to the ambition of young men in the Navy

and the chances of promotion, very few seamen—I think less than 2 per cent.—who serve 22 years finish their service in that same category.

Mr. Willis: Does not the Civil Lord think that the figures that he has given in reply to this and the preceding Question indicate that this method of increasing pensions by the same percentage throughout is quite unfair to the people with a smaller pension?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think we have made improvements in the Pensions (Increase) Acts. The earlier Acts in 1944, 1947 and 1952 were designed to relieve hardship in its absolute sense. The 1959 and 1962 Acts were aimed at dealing with the relative hardship suffered, and this situation has improved considerably.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in the design studies of the next generation of aircraft carriers; and whether a decision has yet been made to build them.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Design of the replacement carrier is going ahead in accordance with the time table. No decision has yet been taken to order the ship.

Mr. Willis: Can the Civil Lord say whether this programme will be affected by the Polaris programme? Secondly, in view of the possibility of using vertical take-off aircraft on these carriers, are any trials being carried out at present in conection with the use of these aircraft on aircraft carriers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is a little too early to say, but I hope that the design staff would not be "robbed" or transferred from the aircraft carrier programme to the Polaris programme. However, as I have said, it is too early to say. On the second point, it is true that we are extremely interested in the 1127 aircraft. It was due to undertake deck landing trials in the last two days. I only hope that the weather will co-operate more closely in future so that we can get on with these trials.

Mr. P. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say whether he is interested also in the 1154, the supersonic version?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, we certainly are, and not only in its basic form but the naval version.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the aircraft carrier programme may be cut because of the Polaris agreement?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I said that I would not like to guarantee at this stage that it would not be cut. I said that we hope to recruit extra design staff to undertake the Polaris programme. It might be necessary to make some small correction.

Personnel

Mr. Lipton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men were serving in the Royal Navy at the beginning of 1939; how many of them were admirals; and what the corresponding figures are today.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The total male strength at 31st March, 1939, was 122.500 including 84 admirals; at 31st March this year total male strength expected to be 94,000 including 75 admirals.

Mr. Lipton: Do not these figures in all their stark simplicity indicate a somewhat top-heavy and unseaworthy superstructure which is calculated to encourage our enemies and dishearten our friends?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think it does. Since before the war we have got international defence organisations which require more admirals and more staff. We have also an enormous expansion of air power. So the two figures are not strictly comparable. I am glad that the hon. Member has now dropped the line he has peddled for some time, that we have more admirals than ships. This is obviously totally untrue on the figures I have given,
Captain Litchfield: Do the numbers of admirals include non-executive officers or are they limited to the seamen branch?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. They do, of course, include non-executive officers. That is another reason why the two figures are not strictly comparable.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the ratio of admirals to ships at the moment?

Mr. On-Ewing: if the right hon. Gentleman will study the Explanatory

Statement he will find that there are 248 ships and these include ships at trials and for training, and support ships, and he can no doubt do the sum more quickly than I.

Miss Vickers: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty by what number the personnel of the Royal Navy, both Service and civilian, will be increased in view of the new defence policy.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I cannot yet give my hon. Friend any firm estimate of the increases we shall need.

Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he will look into this in the very near future, in view of the reply given previously that we have a 3 per cent. shortage of recruits already? Because of the possibility that such submarines will each need two crews of 100 each, and we are short of technicians, surely this is a very pressing problem?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, we are looking into all these problems. The whole Polaris project raises an immense number of questions and it will require time for them to be resolved.

Mr. Lipton: May we have the assurance that whatever shortage exists in the various arms of the naval Service there is not likely to be any shortage of admirals for many years ahead?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that there are many people in the Royal Navy well worthy of being promoted to admiral.

Surface Warships (Polaris Missiles)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given by the naval staff to the practicability of mounting Polaris missiles on surface warships.

Mr. C. Ian On-Ewing: This has been considered but surface ships would not have the same invulnerability. Additional development would be needed to overcome problems which do not occur with the proved Polaris system.

Mr. Goodhart: If there should be any delay in the construction of our nuclear submarines, or if the deterrent gap should prove to be as serious as some Opposition spokesmen have indicated, will my


hon. Friend look at this again? As we have five missile surface ships on order at the moment, would it not be fairly easy to adapt them so that they can take these very powerful missiles?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We will bear this point in mind. I think it is better to put all our resources behind the production efforts for these new nuclear submarines and not divert them to try to solve the problems which arise if we look to surface ships—problems which do not arise in the other case.

Mr. Paget: Is there not something to be said for this? Would not Polaris missiles in the surface ships probably be more economically useless than putting them into submarines?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There may be something to be said for it in the hon. and learned Member's mind, but I think that most strategists would not agree with him.

Mr. Kershaw: Is it not a fact that a ship equipped to fire Polaris missiles is about one-thirtieth of the cost of a Polaris submarine? Is it not, therefore, a consideration whether we should not have 30 of these ships, and would that not be more efficient than having all our eggs in one Polaris basket?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would suggest that a surface ship is many more than 30 times as vulnerable as the Polaris submarine. We are trying to construct a deterrent which will last us right away through the 'seventies. It is surely better to have an ultimate deterrent rather than a temporary stop-gap.

Dockyards (Future Works)

Miss Vickers: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider drawing up a 10-year programme of work for the Royal Naval Dockyards in view of the new defence policy.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is already our practice to prepare a long-term assessment of future work in the Royal Dockyards; this takes account of Fleet plans as known at the time and is reviewed annually.

Miss Vickers: Will my hon. Friend consider having a 10-year programme in future, so that we can have really balanced working in naval dockyards,

and may I ask him to ensure that in his efforts to keep employment in other dockyards in the country and to increase employment there he will not create unemployment in the naval dockyard at Devonport?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The decision to make a long-term forecast of the dockyard load was taken last year and we are doing it in more detailed form than ever before. I agree that it is very important indeed. On the second issue, we are well aware of the problems of the dockyards and we are watching the load most carefully.

Captain W. Elliot: What sort of work has gone into modernisation of naval dockyards in recent years and what sort of sum has been spent?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On home dockyards alone in the last 10 years we have invested more than£34 million in new buildings, new machinery and new techniques. This is an earnest of our confidence in the future of the Royal Naval Dockyard.

Mr. Snow: In view of the Polaris decision, what additional staff and what changes of personnel have been decided for our naval dockyards?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Again, that is another aspect which we are examining. It will take a long time before it is resolved.

Assault Ships "Fearless" and "Intrepid"

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are the expected completion dates for H.M.S. "Fearless" and H.M.S. "Intrepid".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend said on 11th July last that these two assault ships, H.M.S. "Fearless" and "Intrepid", would join the Fleet in about three years' time—that is, in 1965. There is no reason to alter that forecast.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this time cannot be reduced? Does it compare reasonably with that of comparable foreign yards?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The assault ship is unique in this country and the U.S.A. So far as I know—I have not got comparable figures—and my hon. Friend will know,


they work the shift system more intensely in the United States than we do in this country.

Departmental Employees (Day- Release Classes)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many more juveniles in his Department are now attending day-release classes as a result of his advice to heath of Departments last November to encourage young people to attend these classes.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is too early to appreciate the effect of the circular which was issued.

Mr. Boyden: That is very discouraging. Is the Civil Lord aware that the situation with regard to the number of 16 to 18-year-olds of the industrial non-apprentice grade in the Admiralty attending day-release classes was the worst in the Civil Service and probably below the figures for the engineering industry as a whole? Surely this is a bit of a scandal and the Civil Lord ought to take very strong steps to see that his Department's figures are brought up to the general level of the Civil Service.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We put out an Admiralty Fleet Order on 4th January, and it is early for us to mark the increase since then. The Order says:
Their Lordships wish every encouragement to be given to these yowls people to take advantage of the available facilities.
I endorse that.

Mr. Boyden: But the hon. Gentleman said on 9th November that he was going to take this action. Surely it does not take from 9th November to January to issue an Order of that description?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is a detailed point. We were trying to resolve a difficulty. We wanted to be able to pay for the books that these young men would use in the extension course. We have now agreed this with the Treasury. It was worth while waiting because these young men will get extra help as a result.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make it a condition of service for all juveniles aged 15 to 18 years that they will attend day-release classes.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We are changing our regulations to make it a condition of service that non-industrials under 16 should attend day-release classes where these are available. As regards non-industrials 16–18 there are many difficulties, and we can do no more than give every encouragement to these juveniles to attend suitable classes.
On the industrial side, apprentices have to attend day training college for the first two years of their apprenticeship. For other juvenile industrials, who are chiefly boy labourers, it is a matter of doubt to what extent compulsory further education for all would be of benefit; encouragement is given for them to attend voluntarily.

Mr. Boyden: This is worse and worse. It is the typical Admiralty snobbish attitude. It means that the under-l6-yearolds of the Admiralty are worse off than those in other Departments. The hon. Gentleman should take steps to bring them up to the position of the others. Why is it that the Home Office and the Prison Commission make day release compulsory up to 18 and the Admiralty does not?

Mr. On-Ewing: When I referred to difficulties, I was referring to difficulties not within the Admiralty but which local authorities have in providing suitable classes. If they can be overcome, we will strongly encourage our boys to attend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Applications for Discharge

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of Army personnel of all ranks who applied for discharge during 1962; how many discharges were granted; and what were the main grounds far refusal.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Records are not kept of the total number of applications submitted by soldiers for discharge.
During 1962, 4,299 male adult other ranks were discharged at their own request.
The main reasons for refusing applications for discharge were that the applicant had either served less than three


years or was in one of the trades which are short of men.
Four hundred and twenty-seven of the 452 officers who applied to leave the active list were allowed to do so. The main reason for refusal was that the training given to the officer justified his further retention in the Army.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are not only disturbing but disappointing? In view of the publicity given to this problem during the nomination period for recent by-elections, will he undertake to look into them more closely and stress that money in itself is not the means of getting out of the Army?

Mr. Ramsden: I do not altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman that these figures are disappointing. They represent an improvement on last year in both trained soldiers and recruits. The question of Parliamentary candidates is rather different; the hon. Gentleman will know from my right hon. Friend's statement how that is now being handled.

Pensions

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War haw much pension, including all increases, is received by a 55-year-old widow of a major who retired after maximum service in 1958 and died on 3rd November, 1958: and how much would it be if her husband had retired this year and died today.

Mr. Ramsden: £181 a year and£310 a year respectively.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in the second case a major's widow would receive very much the same pension as that of a senior executive officer in the Civil Service, in the first case a Civil Service widow would receive some£85 more? Why did my right hon. Friend say in his speech on 20th December that there was no basis on which Service widows who lost their husbands before 3rd November, 1958, could be distinguished from any other category of public service pensioner, and when there is already that very considerable difference, why did he say that their pensions could not be reassessed unless those of all other Service pensioners were reassessed as well?

Mr. Ramden: If I understood my hon. Friend's supplementary question aright, I do not think I can altogether accept it. It is misleading to make comparisons between one Service and another which are supposedly based on comparable ranks. I think that my right hon. Friend was carrect—I believe the House accepted it—when he said that if it is a question of altering the basis of assessment we must do this overall—for one Service as well as for another.

Mr. Paget: Now that we are in a time when we are looking to expand spending power, ought we not to accept the principle that the same service deserves the same pension, and that it is dishonourable for a Government to pay pensions in bad money when they have been responsible for making that money bad?

Mr. Ramsden: We debated this subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman made this point to my right hon. Friend and was answered. I do not think there is any change in the situation which warrants my going beyond what was then said.

Mr. Wade: In any case, is it not high time that the arbitrary distinction between widows of former members of the Armed Services who died before 3rd November. 1958, and others was abolished?

Mr. Ramsden: That is exactly the point. I have nothing to add to what has been said on former occasions.

Mr. Johnson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend fully understood the meaning of my question. What I was trying to make clear was that at the present time the Civil Service widow and the Service widow get the same amount of pension approximately, but before 1958 there was this very considerable difference. Surely there would be no need for reassessment to bring one up to the level of the other?

Mr. Ramsden: The difficulty about the Government's position is that we cannot rewrite history in this matter. When a basis has been laid down in the past, it cannot now be altered.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War how much retired pay and terminal grant is received by a


retired major who has today reached the age of 60 and was retired at 45; what is the normal compulsory age of retirement; and how much retired pay and terminal grant a major receive, who retires today after maximum service.

Mr. Ramsden: A major who retired at 45 and is now 60 gets£689 a year retired pay with no terminal grant. The normal compulsory age of retirement for a major is 55.
A major retiring today with maximum service receives£930 a year retired pay with a terminal grant of£2,790, of which£27 10s. a year retired pay and£82 10s. of the terminal grant are withheld until the 1st April of this year in accordance with the 1962 White Paper on Service Pay and Pensions.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that today the major and the senior executive officer in the Civil Service receive approximately the same amount of pension and the same terminal grant? On the other hand, is he aware that the retired major who is 60 today receives a pension some 40 per cent. less than that of a senior executive officer in the Civil Service of similar age and no terminal grant whatsoever? Does not he recall my right hon. Friend saying that it would be wrong to deal with Service men differently from other public service pensioners? But is that not what is happening?

Mr. Ramsden: I am afraid that we cannot give to those who have already retired the right of benefit from the improved conditions of service that Parliament has decided should apply to their successors.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Civilian Employees, Singapore

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the negotiations with regard to redundancy amongst civilian employees, both established and unestablished, of the Army in Singapore; and if he has had any proposals for reference of disputed points to arbitration.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): The Army authorities told the Singapore Army Civil Service

Union in May, 1961, that redeployment of the Army would make many locally engaged civilians redundant. The discharges began last month and will be completed by March, 1964. The redundancies amount to about 1,600 posts.
We have been negotiating with the Army Civil Service Union over the last 18 months on many matters, and the main point in dispute is the amount of gratuity to be paid to those who are discharged. The gratuity which we are paying is generous, but the union wants greater compensation and it is on this point that it wishes to go to arbitration.

Mr. Paget: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that at least one of the functions of our base in Singapore is to provide good will and support for the Government there. Do these redeployments involve downgrading and less pay for a number of established civil servants as well as the discharge of a number of unestablished civil servants? Is that a very wise thing to do? Is this not a situation which creates a tremendous amount of bad will? If there is a request for arbitration, in these circumstances, is it not desirable to comply with it?

Mr. Profumo: We follow the practice of local good employers. I am satisfied, having recently reviewed our arrangements, that they are well in line with what local good employers do. Established employees are being dealt with under the provisions of the United Kingdom Superannuation Act. I am satisfied that we are giving generous treatment, and in view of what we are doing I cannot agree with arbitration.

Mr. Paget: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, why should not an arbitrator be satisfied? If he feels that his case is such a good one, why should he fear arbitration?

Mr. Profumo: It is not a question of fearing arbitration. There is no cause for arbitration in this case. I am absolutely satisfied, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member would be if he looked into the terms we give, that we are doing everything in line with local good employment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely the whole point of arbitration is to use it when one side is not satisfied.

Mr. Profumo: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. Some people are professing themselves to be dissatisfied by particular sections of the gratuities and arrangements we are making. We have been doing this over a long period, and have just reviewed our practice and brought it into line with the practice of local good employers. I can see no reason for departing from established custom and having arbitration.

Recruitment Policy

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on recruitment policy for the Army.

Mr. Profumo: Recruitment policy for the Army continues to be the creation of a balanced all Regular force capable of carrying out our national commitments.

Mr. Paget: At what point do married men cease to be suitable for carrying out overseas commitments? At what point does the Brigade of Gurkhas cease to be suitable? At what point do various educational standards suddenly become necessary? Surely the right hon. Gentleman's statement is not very satisfactory in view of what is happening?

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not find it satisfactory. Our aim is to produce a balanced and well-trained, highly mobile army of the highest calibre. We have reached the stage in recruitment when we can take certain steps to raise our general standards. I believe that those steps will be applauded not only in the Army but by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the Army becomes complete and up to establishment, for we shall then have the best men available. We are recruiting them in the best possible way now and I am convinced that this policy is the right one.

Sir J. Smyth: When may we expect my right hon. Friend's statement about the future recruitment of the Gurkhas? Does he realise that, because of the spate of rumours in the Press over the last few days, there is acute anxiety on this matter in this House, in Nepal and in the Brigade of Gurkhas?

Mr. Profumo: I appreciate what my right hon. and gallant Friend says, and I know how this House feels about the Brigade of Gurkhas. But I am not yet in a position to say anything finally about it. I hope to be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks. Meanwhile, I hope that people will not take too literally what they read in the newspapers, for which I am not responsible.

Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he proposes to reduce the Gurkha force by one-third? Does not he agree that one reason why it is necessary to raise standards in the Army is that some of the services have a wastage of approximately 40 per cent?

Mr. Profumo: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the steps we are taking in order to bring the all-Regular Army into the right focus. No decision about the future of the Gurkhas has been taken.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: My right hon. Friend has referred to rumours in the Press about a reduction. Is it not the case that the best way that the Government could get rid of them would be to announce that there is not going to be a reduction?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Profumo: I will answer. If I were to take precipitate action—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: It has taken one year already.

Mr. Profumo: The House cannot grumble about the Gurkhas if no decision has been taken. This is an extremely difficult matter with the widest possible repercussions, and until the Government are satisfied and ready to take action I cannot do anything just because the papers print rumours.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman said that we would be delighted to know what he was doing, but we should like to be in a position to judge. When will he, by answering our questions, provide us with the opportunity to judge?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member's question to me referred to announcements I recently made about alterations in the requirements for recruits. He now knows what those changes are. First, we shall require two written references instead of one which


could be oral. Secondly, by and large we are not going to take married people, except in exceptional circumstances, because too many were being taken on. Thirdly, we are not going to take people who are actually on probation. These are the only new changes in our policy, and I believe them to be right.

Atomic Tactical Weapons

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the atomic tactical weapons of British manufacture now in use in the British Army.

Mr. Profumo: There are none, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister of that reply, because when I asked this Question of the Prime Minister be said that he would not weary the House by giving a list? The Prime Minister also went on to state that the answer had already been given by the Minister of Defence. Can we now take it that (a) the Prime Minister did not know and that (b) the Minister of Defence knew but would not say?

Mr. Profttmo: Certainly not. I cannot accept any of that. The situation was that the Minister of Defence was talking about our deterrent forces and not about the Army tactical nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to weary the House by going into details on those weapons.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

51st Infantry Brigade

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the present role of the 51st Infantry Brigade; and what steps he has taken to provide an effective reserve in the United Kingdom in the event of their departure to the Far East.

Mr. Profumo: 51 Infantry Brigade is part of the Strategic Reserve. If it were sent to the Far East there would still normally be two brigade groups and some unbrigaded units left in this country.
I should add that only one battalion is still at 72 hours' notice. The remainder of 51 Brigade have now been stood down.

Mr. Morris: What steps have been taken in recent weeks to increase the strength of units in the brigade. Would it not be reasonable to assume that if the brigade went to the Far East it would be away for a considerable time? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted our N.A.T.O. allies about this? Are they satisfied with the present arrangements?

Mr. Profumo: There is no need to consult them, because it is well known that our Strategic Reserve has a joint responsibility, to B.A.O.R. and on a world-wide basis. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's query about how long the brigade might be away if it were sent to the Far East. That is a hypothetical question. I am satisfied that the strength of the units in the Strategic Reserve is such that it is capable in all respects of carrying out its obligations.

Mr. Kershaw: In view of the importance of keeping up the strength of the Strategic Reserve, will the right hon. Gentleman deny the rumour that recruiting for the British Army is to be kept unofficially below 175,000?

Mr. Profumo: No Sir. I hope that my hon. Friend will not ask me to deny every rumour in the newspapers. I hope that I satisfy him by saying that our policy is proceeding steadily in building up recruitment on the lines I have announced.

Mr. Hall: Am I right in saying that one of the two brigades in the Strategic Reserve is the Parachute Brigade? If so, can he say how many battalions of that brigade are in this country?

Mr. Profumo: It is wrong to say that one of the two brigades is the Parachute Brigade. One is the 19th Brigade and the other the 51st. The Parachute Brigade is over and above that strength.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the 51st Brigade was pledged to N.A.T.O. as part of our commitment in Europe?

Mr. Profumo: As is known by our N.A.T.O. allies, the 51st Brigade is primarily concerned with helping B.A.O.R., but it also has a world-wide connotation. It has a double stance. It can do either lob. If it is doing something in the Far East, there is still the 19th Brigade. It is right to have a flexible Strategic Reserve which is not pinned down to one particular job on hand.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide minimum terms for severance pay for workers dismissed through redundancy or other causes beyond their control.
In ten short minutes may I explain why it is that I seek to trespass on the patience of the House for a second time and, in effect, to reintroduce this Measure? In the circumstances of the day, I think that we are all fully satisfied that the right to work is fundamental, that the right to make a contribution to the society to which he belongs is a fundamental right of a worker.
But there are two other rights to which I wish to refer. There is the right to seek an increased standard of living, and the right for the worker and his wife to spend their earnings in the way they wish, and to change the pattern of their spending from time to time. To increase the standard of living inevitably means that there will have to be increased efficiency, and that means that there will have to be technological developments, of which we are all aware. That inevitably means some dislocation of employment. Furthermore, if we are to be free to change our pattern of spending, there will inevitably be a change in the pattern of supply. That means workers moving from one production to another, and that again means some dislocation of employment.
Both these fundamental rights mean change. Both mean temporary unemployment and in present circumstances—and I underline that it is in present circumstances—both mean great hardship for the individual. Both encourage a great sense of insecurity among the workers. We cannot escape the conclusion that for a prosperous and free society an element of mobility of labour is required, but for a just society we require that the worker involved should not suffer. Indeed, he is the person whom we should consider first and not last.
The Bill is intended to meet these very circumstances. As the House may remember, its terms provide for redundancy

payment, severance payment, as it is called, based on one week's pay for every full year of service given to an employer, in respect of the loss of a job through no fault of the employee. This would tend to remove the hardship which I have just mentioned in a way which nothing else does. It would provide a sum of money, not very large, but at the very time it was most needed, when the worker was suffering what might be a catastrophic drop in wages on being declared redundant in a job in which he was highly skilled and well paid. It provides that sense of security which we seek to establish.
It demonstrates to the worker that society is saying to him, "We need the product of your work: you need the work; we need you. If we need you to change from one job to another, we, society, will look after you in that period of change. We will train you"—I hope—"and we will see that you do not suffer hardship in the period of change, so far as we can avoid it."
That is the way to improve labour relations. It is the way to encourage a sense of loyalty in the worker, who will reciprocate when he knows that his employer is taking this attitude and that if the worker is unfortunate enough to be declared redundant, it does not mean he is being put on the scrapheap.
Cost is not an argument against the Bill at this time. Even in present circumstances—I repeat what I said on the subject last year—the Bill would not cost more than 2s. per£100 of wages, 2s. per cent., the minimum cost of an ordinary fire insurance policy. As the House will remember, compared with what exists among the best employers in this and comparable countries, this little Bill provides less than the best. I seek to provide a minimum, not a maximum.
The best employers, the nationalised industries, the Civil Service, local government, and so on, all provide something in the form of severance pay when a man is declared redundant. All comparable countries on the Continent, and the United States, provide, either by legislation or by agreement, that there shall be compensation greater than that provided in the Bill. We cannot but recognise that we are far behind what is done in comparable circumstances in


similar countries which have higher standards for the treatment of redundant workers.
It is necessary to deal with this matter by legislation because negotiation has been shown to be far too slow. I estimate that there are now only approximately 15 per cent. of the country's employees who are provided with satisfactory redundancy agreements. What I seek to do is to provide a minimum and the figures I have suggested enable negotiations for increases to take place in appropriate cases, and in other cases to provide a floor for the employee.
It may be asked why I trespass on the patience of the House to introduce the Bill a second time. There are two reasons. The first time the House was good enough, and gracious enough, to give me leave to bring in the Bill, which meant that the House felt that, given time, there should be an opportunity to discuss some of the principles, was on May Day last year. That was clearly too late in the Session for adequate time to be provided for this kind of discussion. Recognising that, I have sought leave to introduce it again about three months earlier in order to give a better opportunity for the discussion which the unopposed leave which I was given last year seemed to indicate that the House thought appropriate.
Furthermore, everything which has happened since last May Day has underlined the need for a Bill of this kind. I have had an enormous correspondence indicating the state of opinion outside the House, and all of it has been in support of the Bill. I have not had one letter opposing it. I have been glad to read many interesting suggestions by employers, including, in particular, a well-known Scottish employer, including proposals almost identical with those of the Bill.
The Press, without exception, has been kind enough to comment favourably on the introduction of this Bill last year. Particular papers which might be thought to have a political affiliation, such as the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Herald, have all had very approving leaders on this topic.
Finally, there have been two comments from party spokesmen with which I must trouble the House in detail. It will be recollected that during the debate on the Queen's Speech last year, Hugh Gaitskell, our much loved leader at the time, referred to this very Bill and to me and said that there should be provision for
redundancy payments, especially for those whose had served an enterprise for many years".—[OFFICE. REPORT, 30th October, 1962; Vol. 664, c. 27.]
On Monday of this week the Minister of Labour said these important words during the debate on unemployment:
Next, we must adjust ourselves to more rapid and industrial technical advance and the consequent changes this must have on employment. We should not and cannot allow this to take place at the expense of the individual. The fear of change and what it can mean is a powerful incentive to resist change and to slow it down by all possible means. We have to ensure that the need for change is accepted and that there is cooperation in creating an efficient and more flexible economy. The problem of security of helping the worker to face change with confidence—is basic to our industrial efficiency."——[OFICAL REPORT, 4th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 65.]
I end with the words of Thomas Carlyle:
The progress of human society consists…in…the better and better apportioning of wages to work.
I feel that this society is ready for this step forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Diamond Mr. John Rankin, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. Herbert Butler, Mr. Ron Ledger, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Julius Silverman, and Mr. John Stonehouse.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)

Bill to provide minimum terms for severance pay for workers dismissed through redundancy or other causes beyond their control, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th February].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DISABLED PERSONS.)

Any person who is entitled in respect of total or partial disablement to an allowance under the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act 1956 or the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts 1951 and 1954 (as extended by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1961) shall from the passing of this Act receive a weekly rate of benefit equivalent to that payable for the corresponding degree of disablement under the Industrial Injuries Acts 1946 to 1961 as amended by this Act.—[Mr. Finch.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause proposes to deal with those persons who come under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, and those who come within the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis benefit schemes. In other words, those persons who sustained accidents or industrial diseases prior to 5th July, 1948.
For the benefit of the House, perhaps I had better refer to the types of persons to whom this Clause relates. First, there are those under the Workmen's Compensation Act itself, those persons who are totally incapacitated and unfit for any type of employment. Next, there are those, and they are in the majority, who are partially disabled. They are fit for some light employment only, and many of them are not in work. Next, there are those who do not strictly come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, what we term the special cases, or time-barred cases, those suffering from pneumoconiosis or byssinosis.
The benefit payable under the benefit scheme to which I have referred, and under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to those totally incapacitated is£4 2s. 6d. Under the Bill the payment for total incapacity, or 100 per cent. assessment,

will be£5 15s. There is, therefore, a considerable difference in benefits payable under the old legislation and this Measure. The difference is, in fact,£1 12s. 6d.
There may be two men who, because they are suffering from pneumoconiosis, may be 100 per cent. disabled. Because one contracted the disease prior to 5th July, 1948—if the Bill goes through without this new Clause—he will receive£4 2s. 6d. whereas the other, having been certified as suffering from the disease after that date, will receive£5 15s.
Whenever this question is raised, one of the arguments used against making a change is that these are two different schemes. One is under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, which was originally the liability of the employer, while the other, under the Industrial Injuries Act, is the responsibility of the State, but I would remind the Committee that we are not in any way affecting the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or the Industrial Injuries Scheme at all. What we are saying is that the rate of compensation under the old should be on a par with that paid under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The difference between the two payments is£1 12s. 6d., and this is bound to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction among those disabled men who will be left out of the benefits of this new scheme.
As I said, the employer was responsible for the scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He or his insurers met that obligation and paid£2 10s. for total incapacity. With the introduction of the Industrial Injuries Act benefits were increased, and the question arose: what should be done to assist the older cases? The result was that supplementations were paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. In 1956, the Government increased the supplementation for those cases, and made the figure on a par with that paid under the Industrial Injuries Act. But since then, due to the increases in industrial injuries benefits, these men have fallen behind. Indeed, when we last dealt with this subject, in 1961, the rate of industrial injuries benefit went up to£4 17s. 6d. for total incapacity with the result that the difference between the


payments under the two schemes was 15s. a week.
If the Bill goes through as at present drafted, the payment under the old scheme will remain at£4 2s. 6d. I remind the Committee that we are dealing with chronic cases. We are dealing with men who have been disabled for 20, 25 or perhaps 30 years, and an employer does not pay compensation unless a man is totally disabled. Years of experience have taught us that insurance companies and employers do not continue to pay compensation if there is the slightest improvement in a man's condition. We can take it, therefore, that we are dealing with seriously disabled men, who for perhaps 20 years or more have not been able to enjoy life.
They have to have continued medical treatment, but they will remain on the same benefit figure if the Bill is not amended. We can imagine the feelings of these totally disabled persons when they realise that other people who come within the provisions of this Bill will receive considerably more than they will.
This principle does not apply in the case of sickness benefit. A person who fell sick before July, 1948, receives increased sickness benefit. The war pensioners of the two world wars are dealt with by separate warrants, but the methods of payment are much the same. Only under the Workmen's Compensation Act do we find that this parity does not exist.
The Minister may say that these men are entitled to other benefits under the National Insurance Act. He may say that they can get constant attendance allowances, or unemployability allowances. Very few men are drawing unemployability allowances, and they have to be in a very serious state of health to warrant the payment of a constant attendance allowance. In any event, those who are covered by the Industrial Injuries Act are also entitled to the constant attendance allowance. It is no argument to say that there are other benefits under the scheme which will apply to these men.
I now turn to the partially disabled. Here, we are treading on rather delicate ground. Today, a person's benefit is assessed on loss of faculty. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the payment in respect of partial incapacity is

based on two-thirds of the difference between a man's pre-accident wage and his post-accident wage. This fraction seems to be sacred to the right hon. Gentleman, as it was to his predecessor. A man who was earning£15 a week and who, because of disability, has to take a light job at£10 a week, and, therefore, loses£5 a week, is tied to the two-thirds fraction. Under the Industrial Injuries Act he gets a disablement pension.
Furthermore, such a man may be able to get a hardship allowance, which, in many cases, can increase his income to the amount that he was getting before the accident. A man who was earning£15 a week and is now earning£13 a week may often be able to obtain a£2 hardship allowance, bringing him up to his former position. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman regards the fraction of two-thirds, under the old Act, as sacred, when the difference in wages can be made up under the Industrial Injuries Act, in certain circumstances, to what it was before the accident.
The new Clause provides that the two classes of people shall be placed in a similar position. It will not be quite the same position, because there is the two-thirds difference under the old Act, while under the new there is the hardship allowance. We submit that these men can be given something very near parity with those who are covered by the Industrial Injuries Act.
I have drawn the Committee's attention to the problem, because it is becoming a very serious one in the mining industry. Of the partially disabled men in this industry, 7,000 are still unemployed, and have been for years. They are receiving very low rates of compensation. In addition, in some cases they have at some time signed on at the employment exchange for unemployment benefit. Since unemployment benefit is based on contributions, it has long since ceased to be payable. These men had to resort to National Assistance.
I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us how many men, classed as partially disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are now receiving National Assistance because their unemployment benefit has expired. They are getting 2s., 3s., or 5s. a week. They will not be helped, but others who


are covered by the Industrial Injuries Act will receive an increase under the Bill.
I now turn to those covered by the benefit scheme. I do not want to burden the House with all the details of these Acts and schemes, but many hon. Members will remember that this benefit scheme was brought in because these men, although certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis, were not covered by the provisions of the old Workmen's Compensation Act. They were time-barred cases, and special legislation had to be passed to provide benefit for them. That benefit, for total incapacity, is£4 2s. 6d. and there is a flat-rate benefit of£1 7s. 6d. There is an appalling situation in the mining industry in this respect. In 1961, no fewer than 55,790 partially and totally disabled men were certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. In 1960, the figure was 54,950.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to visit any mining villages in South Wales, or other parts of the country. If so, his pension officers would have been able to tell him some harrowing stories of the suffering and agony of these men. They are continually coughing and gasping for breath. They are unable to sleep. They are always walking or standing about outside the institutes, locking for Press cuttings giving them news of anything that will affect their compensation.
They have given a lifetime to coal getting. Today, coughing their lungs up, they will look at the provisions of the Bill and see that others will receive£5 15s. while they stay where they are. If the right hon. Gentleman visited some of these mining valleys he would be amazed, and perhaps depressed, at the sight of these men. On humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason, their benefit should be increased.
It is no use arguing that we have not the money. On the last occasion when we had such a Bill as this before us the industrial injuries contribution was reduced by 1d. both for the workman and for the employer. The miners were amazed. This reduction in the contribution showed the state of the Industrial Injuries Fund. By the reduction the fund saved about£9 million, but the miners would have been prepared to con-

tinue paying that 1d. if they could have had the assurance that the people covered by the old rules would be properly compensated. Having regard to the state of the fund, it is clear that there can be no financial argument against the Clause. There is no reason why these older men should not be compensated, so that they are brought more or less to parity with those who are covered by the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act.
It was an essential part of the Beveridge Report that the position of those covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act should be maintained in full parity with the position of those covered by the Industrial Injuries Act. This principle has not been honoured. If we want to quote Beveridge, we should maintain that principle. There is no financial argument against this increase, and there cannot be anything against it on humanitarian grounds. What can the argument against it be? I can assure the Minister that the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers feel very strongly about the situation. That is so, not only in the mining areas, but in Stoke-on-Trent—

Mrs. Harriet Slater: And the Potteries.

Mr. Finch: Yes, and the Potteries.
The Minister should come to those areas and see the suffering of these men. I am very serious about this and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity which is now available to him to say that he will not adhere to the rigid methods which have for so long been a feature of the administration of his Ministry. Let us give these older men benefits equal to those awarded to men who come within the ambit of the Industrial Injuries Act.
The young and able-bodied workers have seen what has happened to these older men, and I warn the Minister that there will be serious dissatisfaction among industrial workers and throughout the whole trade union movement unless these older men are placed in the same position as the recipients of benefit under the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: Looking at the record, I find that it is forty-one years since we started on the long, hazardous and thorny road which we are


still travelling. We have not yet reached a haven of rest and peace for those men who were injured in industry. As I have said many times, so long as we have wars we shall have sick and wounded men; and so long as we have industry we shall have sick and wounded men who have been broken and bruised upon the wheel of industry. It is the duty of this Committee and of the nation to protect those who are so broken and bruised.
This is the twenty-first time that we have tried to bring these men under the umbrella provided by the provisions in the compensation legislation. I hope that today we shall be able to persuade the Minister into an attitude of mind similar to that which obtained in 1951, when his predecessor lent an ear to our pleas. One is inclined to ask how does this situation arise? Why is it that so many men who were injured have been, as it were, left by the wayside? It all results from the fact that under the 1923 legislation a niggardly formula was adopted for the assessment of compensation to injured workmen.
Because of the operation of that formula the pre-1948 cases have been left out. Many of the victims of accidents before 1948 have gone to their reward. Many died without receiving that to which they were entitled in the shape of compensation and which they would have received had the formula been correct. I do not suppose that one in 25 or even one in 50 of hon. Members opposite can claim to understand the formula which is used to determine that compensation. I do not blame hon. Members for that.
I recall that when I was injured and carried out from the pit, it was necessary for me to be off work for a month before I received any compensation at all. That was a point in the formula. A man had to be off work for that period before he received any compensation. Another point was that compensation was payable on pre-accident earnings. In that way hundreds and thousands of men were robbed of compensation, because as the wages ascended down came the amount of full or partial compensation. Today, we submit this Amendment on behalf of those men who have been the victims.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I have spent a lifetime dealing with compensation

cases. What do we find today? As was said by my hon. Friend, two men may live next door to each other. One may receive compensation because he was injured after 1948. But because his neighbour was injured before 1948 the formula will have been applied to him and he will not receive any compensation. I repeat what I said yesterday. We are not playing fair with the workmen, either those who were injured post-1948 or pre-1948, and particularly thepre-1948 victims. There has been, and there will continue to be, a strong feeling of resentment among members of the National Union of Mineworkers particularly—and other industries—because more accidents occur in the mining industry than in other industries—and among the pottery workers, at the fact that these people do not receive compensation.
As I have said already, I hope that we may create an attitude of mind on the part of the Minister similar to that which obtained on 16th November, 1951, during the period of office of his predecessor who now sits in another place. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had a lot to do with compensation. He was one of the old coal mine owners and knew something about the intricacies, difficulties and perplexities of this problem. His experience prompted him to have a great deal of sympathy for injured workmen.
All we are attempting to do today is to ensure that the pre-1948 cases are brought under the umbrella which protects the post-1948 cases. Many men have never recovered from the injuries which they sustained while working in the pits. To me, it is a tragedy that, in the enlightened days of 1963, we must come to the House of Commons for the twenty-first time to make a plea on behalf of these injured workmen and beg that something be done which should be done out of generosity and justice because of what these workmen have given to the nation.
I do not altogether blame the Minister. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the humane manner in which he approaches many of the problems submitted to him, but I find difficulty in giving similar credit to his Department. I am sorry to have to speak in this way. But if the senior officials would take a little more notice it would be helpful.
We do not expect them to understand all our problems, but we do expect them to take notice of the people who are knowledgeable about these problems. They should not say no every time we put before them a solution of the problem.
It is not my intention to continue this discussion at any length, but, having reached a stage at which we are afforded an opportunity of putting forward a plea on behalf of these men, we want to seize that opportunity and use it with all the vigour we can muster. That is what we are doing this afternoon. I appeal to the Minister to accept this new Clause. I repeat that it is the twenty-first time the request has been made. Let us meet with success in our desire to protect these men.
I have in my hand a list of cases I have dealt with. Every one of them has died and gone to his last reward without receiving the compensation which was due to him. Is it right, is it fair, is it just, that men who were broken on the wheel of industry in the production of the material which is so essential to the welfare of the nation should go to their reward without having their demands met? As I have said before, neither the Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any statistician can state in terms of£.s.d. the loss to a man who suffered injury in the pit. I know that those on the Government Front Bench will think this is sentimentalism, but it is not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty lives in a mining village, so do others of my hon. Friends, and I do. Every day I see two men walking up the road. One gets compensation because he sustained injury or contracted a disease after 1948. Walking by his side is a man who contracted a disease or sustained an injury prior to 1948. Is it logical or humane that those two men should not be treated alike? Both worked in the same pit in the same colliery and they live in the same road. One is getting compensation of a certain amount, and the other is not getting the same amount.
The reason why we plead this afternoon is that in 1923, and again in 1945, the Government of the day failed to meet their responsibilities and to bring such cases under the same umbrella. Let us

not go from this Chamber today with a stain on our consciences, but with an attitude of mind and contentment of mind that at least we have done something for those who have been left by the wayside in days gone by. I sincerely hope that the Miinster will accept the new Clause.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: We must all deeply sympathise with the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and also after listening to our friend the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in his very sincere appeal for the sympathy of this Committee. I confess that it always deeply moves me when I hear, not only of his personal experience, but of has thought for others in a similar position.
I think that every modern and humane employer has exactly the same view and sympathy as I have. Businesses with which I am associated have for a long time deeply deplored that any employee should get hurt or disabled through their fault—through failure to take sufficient precautions, or to ensure sufficient protection for their employees. I also think that every modern and humane employer is mortified at the thought that men should be hurt or disabled through their own fault. So, in every modern industry I know of there is an accident prevention committee. There are competitions in various works with a view to getting the lowest ratio of accidents.
That is all to the good, but unfortunately men still get hurt and disabled despite all the efforts that are made. What now is to be done about it? The hon. Member for Bedwellty suggested that adequate compensation should be given to make up for disability. I do not know the technical difficulties which might be presented, but I want the Minister to realise that we on this side of the Committee are equally sympathetic, keen and determined to do all we can to help those who have been injured in their daily work.
We who have been soldiers have seen men dying and wounded through no fault of theirs. That happens equally in industry; men get hurt and disabled through no fault of their own. Possibly there is a little carelessness, perhaps a foreman does not see that adequate guards are put around dangerous machinery. Since we


cannot prevent disablement taking place, at any rate let us to the best of our ability see if we can compensate those who have been hurt. For that reason, I support the new Clause.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I am sure that my colleagues warmly welcome the expressions of opinion of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). I hope that the Minister will eventually emerge from the conversation he is having on the Front Bench and, if not convinced by us of the merits of this case, that he will be influenced by the sentiments and support expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) led the Committee through a maze of legislation which is very confusing to the lay mind, but he eventually emerged into the clear and submitted to the Minister arguments on the principle involved in this very important Clause. I shall not deal with the complexities of the situation, but I put to the Minister a very simple question which requires a simple answer.
Why have these old compensation cases been excluded from the benefits of the new Measure? The same Government were in office when this problem was debated on the Second Reading of the Family Allowances Bill in November, 1961. All that has happened to change the situation has been a change of Ministers. I am rather bewildered by what has happened. The circumstances in 1963 are similar to those which obtained in 1961, yet there has been a change of policy.
In 1961, the former Minister of Pensions, who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said this:
…I am sure that one cannot ignore completely, where big improvements have been made, as they have been in respect of industrial injuries, the fact that those who had their accident before the Industrial Injuries Scheme came into effect do not receive as much by way of benefit as those who had their accident after the scheme came into being.
I am sure that the House was surprised to note the warmth, fervour and enthusiasm expressed on that occasion by the former Minister of Pensions, who had the opportunity in 1961 to introduce the very form of improvement which we now seek to make.
On the very same day the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said this in winding up the debate:
Secondly—and perhaps I should have put this first—it is to bring some help to those who received injuries or disablement in industry at the time when they did not have the benefit of the cover of the Industrial Injuries Act.
This was a very important statement, again indicating enthusiasm, warmth and delight at having the opportunity to make the very change which we suggest today.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary ended in this way:
The whole House will think that this is a worth-while purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 1181 and 1270.]
The Committee is entitled to expect the Minister to tell us what has influenced him—because the Government and the circumstances are the same; only the Minister has changed—what new factor has arisen in 1963 which did not obtain in 1961. The financial considerations in 1963 are of less importance than they were in 1961, because these men are what we would term a diminishing liability. There are 6,600 old compensation cases. The financial liability would be£260,000. The cost of the new proposals and the new scales of payments will be£200 million, which is an enormous sum in comparison to the relatively small sum of£260,000 a year to cover the needs of 6,600 old compensation cases. There is thus no justification for denying this on financial grounds.
The contribution which the Exchequer would have to make should be a very minor consideration, because this comes out of contributions. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know what the answer would be if we were able to ask the millions and millions of contributors to the Insurance Fund what they would like us to do this afternoon. If the man in the street were asked, "Are you prepared to allow your contributions to be used to satisfy the urgent needs of these old compensation cases?", I have no hesitation that in saying that he would express his support for the Clause.
What can the Minister say to the Committee to explain why the Government—because in this there is a certain


amount of collective responsibility—are not prepared to do in 1963 what they seemed prepared to do in 1961? Having heard the expressions of opinion from both sides of the Committee, I trust that the Minister will consult the Cabinet or the person responsible for this decision and, having considered the pleas which have been made, at a later stage this evening give us an assurance that the proposals contained in the Clause will be accepted by the Government.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: Coming from a mining area, I must take the opportunity of expressing the opinion of the Scottish miners about this anomaly. Different treatment is accorded to a man who was certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis or was totally incapacitated on 4th July, 1948, from that accorded to a man who was injured or was certified on 5th July, 1948.
Like my colleagues from mining areas, I have had much experience of dealing with pneumoconiosis cases and men who have been badly injured in collieries. I have often wondered whether the Minister and his colleagues, and indeed back benchers opposite, have ever had the opportunity of seeing these old men who when they go for a walk on a reasonably good day cannot walk further than five yards without hanging on to a dyke or a paling to hold themselves up. Their lungs refuse to function as they were meant to function. As the years pass their lungs become worse and worse. They cough their lungs out daily.
I should like to take the Minister to a hospital in West Lothian which deals with pneumoconiosis cases. The men are lying on their backs, unable to move, because of their inability to breathe in the way a human being was meant to breathe. I am sure that if the Minister saw them he would consider the appeal we are making in a favourable light.
I would remind hon. Members that so few men are involved and time is so against them that it is all the more important that we should agree to give them what is rightly theirs. Time is an important factor in pneumoconiosis cases, especially since the men with whom we are concerned are well advanced in years

and as each week passes they become weaker. Surely it is time the Government took a humane view and gave these old men the£1 12s. 6d., the difference between the amount they receive and the compensation given to those who were injured at a later date, perhaps only a day later. The£1 12s. 6d. would certainly not restore them to health, but it would enable them to obtain a few of the comforts to which they are entitled.
As my hon. Friends have said, these men have spent their working lives in the mining industry. Many of them heard the appeal of the then Prime Minister in 1940 for greater effort to increase coal output to help us win the war. They made that greater effort. They have served their country well and are entitled to get the same as those who are now receiving the highest rate of compensation. That is why we in the mining industry believe that the present anomalous position should be rectified immediately.
If any hon. Member cares to come to Midlothian, which is a mining area, he would soon see what I mean. I mix with these people each weekend and on each successive occasion I see them I find them worse in health. I say without offence that those who do not belong to a mining area cannot understand what pneumoconiosis really means. If they saw the old men about whom I am speaking I am sure that they would support the new Clause. I am not asking for sympathy for these people; just justice. Considering the amount of money being spent by the Government in so many ways, surely it is possible that some of it could be better spent in helping these people.
I urge the Minister to show the country that the Government have some consideration for those to whom they appealed when our needs were great, who helped us win the war. I do not intend to go into any statistics. That is not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) gave all the figures necessary. I only add my voice with all the sincerity I can to urge hon. Members to press the Government to give to these old people that to which they are entitled.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Hon. Members are always impressed when a


plea is made from personal experience. That certainly has been the case today and following the way in which the hon. Member—I am tempted to say "my hon. Friend" because I agree with him in so many matters—for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), ably supported by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), have made their appeal it is difficult not to have a great deal of sympathy and support for the new Clause.
I cannot speak with the experience of those who work or have worked in the coal mining industry. But I came in contact with a number of miners during my training as a solicitor, when I had to deal with cases under the old Workmen's Compensation Act. For the first time in my life I realised the terrible ravages of the diseases and disabilities we are now considering. It is really comparable with the horrors and aftermath of war. The feelings we have on seeing an old soldier terribly mutilated are not all that different from the feelings we have when seeing a former miner or someone else suffering from pneumoconiosis, almost coughing out his inside.
One naturally hesitates to call for further expenditure in the setting of a Bill which, ultimately, will involve massive expenditure, amounting probably to£200 million. At the same time, I confess that while accepting the new Clause would not be likely to redound greatly to the electoral popularity of the Government, since the number of people concerned is small, it is the sort of thing that goes far beyond electoral popularity or anything of that nature and even if the Minister is never remembered—or even the Government for that matter—far taking a gesture of this kind, it would have its own virtue.
I realise that there are technical objections involved. I know the history of this matter and, without wishing to quarrel with the hon. Member for Ince, he might have said that apart from Governments having omitted to deal with it in 1923 and 1945, the matter was also left out in 1948; omitted at that time by the hon. Member's own Labour Government. There were reasons why that was done, but when one realises the small number of men involved and the hardships they have suffered one

must agree that the modest—and it is modest compared with the whole of our welfare legislation—sum involved would mean a great deal of difference to them.
Is there not some way for my right hon. Friend to ensure, if he cannot make the concession which is sought, that these men can come under the umbrella of our welfare organisation?

Mr. James Griffiths: What does the hon. Member mean when he says that the matter was "left out" by the Labour Government?

Mr. Gower: Just that the legislation introduced at the time of the Labour Government did not ensure that these men would enjoy the benefits being sought in the new Clause. That is all I meant. Had Socialist legislation at that time been framed differently, one might have assumed that these men would have been included. That is all I was saying. I realise that all legislation is imperfect and I do not want it to be thought that I am arguing on this point. As I say, legislation is imperfect and we are discovering its imperfections as we go along.
The sentiments expressed today by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee indicate the strong feeling that something should be done for these men. Unless my right hon. Friend can produce unanswerable reasons why he cannot do anything for them, I fear that I will not be able to support him.

Mr. Thomas Swain: In supporting the new Clause I would like to say at the outset that I am probably the only victim in the House of Commons suffering from the terrible disease of pneumoconiosis. I not only have experience of the trade union movement in dealing with pneumoconiosis cases, but I am also a victim of that disease. I can assure the Committee that being a victim of this ravaging disease is no pleasure in any shape or form.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on the way in which he moved this new Clause. By the time he had finished there was not a great deal more to be said, and I am sure that the conviction with which he spoke, and the facts that he presented, were enough to impress not only the


House but the Minister, who does not always pay attention to back benchers' speeches.
In my own town we there have two men of exactly the same age. One was a coal face worker but, as a result of injury, he has been a paraplegic since 1946. The other man received a similar injury in 1949, and that, too, resulted in paraplegia. The first man receives£4 2s. 6d. a week, while the other man, of exactly the same age, with the same surroundings and same type of family and home will, under the new benefits receive£5 15s. a week, although injured only three years later. That is an anomaly, and the only person who can right it is the Minister. The sole obligation is on his shoulders. If he is human—and I always use "if" when I mention Ministers and humanity—our pleas will not be in vain.
From time to time we have made a very urgent plea to another Minister for the provision of two-seater cars for paraplegic workmen. That plea has always fallen on deaf ears. It did so on the last occasion because the Minister complained very bitterly that it would cost about£2 million. I suggest that if the Minister listens to us today he will be convinced that the cost of righting this very great anomaly in the Act will not cost anything like that amount. In any case, what is£2 million by comparison with the£83 million that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wafted to the country's parasites only a year ago? I make this appeal to the Minister, not only on behalf of our miners, but on behalf of every ex-workman who received an injury prior to July, 1948.
A man who works in a brewery and gets a broken back is just as much injured as someone who worked in the pit. We are not sectarian in our plea, but appeal for all the people who have been terribly injured in industry. The men who, today, are 100 per cent. injured, whether they were injured in 1948 or only yesterday, have made their contribution, not only to the industry in which they worked but to the overall economy and welfare of the country. The finest way in which the Minister could answer us would be to say that he is prepared to accept this new Clause, so ably moved by my hon. Friend and supported from both sides of the House.
4.45 p.m.
It has been suggested that criticisms may be forthcoming from the mineworkers when their contribution goes up by a ld., but I can tell the House that every man and boy working in my own pit, the Malcolm No. 2 Colliery in Derbyshire, voluntarily contributes a 1s. a week to make as easy as possible the lot of these permanently disabled men. The money is collected and distributed at the pit, and were it not for such local efforts those pre-1914–18 cases would be living on the verge of abject poverty. But for the voluntary efforts and contributions of this great community of miners, those men would be absolute paupers.
There is in the mining areas a community of spirit, both in health and in sickness, comparable with that anywhere else in the world. Men in the mining industry are more susceptible than any to accident, so that our industry has the largest number of permanently disabled men of any.
I want to congratulate the mines safety committees on the great work they have done over the last few years. Were it not for the efforts of local managements and trade union leaders, the rate of accidents in the pit would be very much higher, because the speed at which the men now have to work makes their job very demanding, and the faster they work the less concentration they are apt to have. The consequence is more injuries.
I appeal to the Minister to look closely at these cases, to be human in his approach to the problem, and to accept the new Clause—as I am sure he will if he gives it due consideration. The cost would be so small and the praise from the disabled would be so great—not only to the Minister but to the whole House of Commons and to the whole country, The Minister will then, for once in his life, have done a good job.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I represent many of the men affected by this new Clause, which I want to support in the strongest terms. We here have one of the worst of many anomalies in our system, and one which gives rise not only to hardship and injustice but to a very great sense of grievance. There is no justification for isolating these men who come under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. There is


no possible reason for leaving them out of any present increase under the Bill.
I hope that the Government will not, for narrow and legalistic reasons, say that this cannot be done. It can be done—it has been done before, and more than once. These men have been granted increases by way of supplementation out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. If the Minister is not willing to accept the new Clause in its present form but has any other suggestion to make to carry out this same end and object, I hope that he will say so. I am one sure that we on this side will accept it gladly.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, I also hope that the Minister will not turn this proposal down on the grounds of expense and that the Government cannot afford it. This really is nonsense, first, because the sum involved is very small, and comparatively small when we consider the full range of the Bill. The numbers are very small. They are becoming tragically smaller every year. In 1955, 24,000 men in the mining industry were involved. Now there are only 16,000. This, therefore, is a diminishing problem and represents a diminishing expenditure. These men are not incurring heavy increases or heavy liabilities for the future.
We say, therefore, that having regard not only to the human aspect but also the expenditure, there is no reason why the Government should not meet my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) in some way or another. We say that there should be parity. Why in equity should one group of men receive£4 2s. 6d. while those who come under the provisions of the Bill will receive£5 15s.? The rise in the cost of living bears as hardly upon one group as upon the other. Their needs are the same. Their hardships are as great. Their suffering is equally painful. But one gets the increased benefits and the other gets not one penny increase.
I want to appeal to the Government, but not for generosity. We are not asking for that. We are asking for common justice from the Government for men whose sufferings have been described in such moving terms not only by those who live among these men in the mining villages, but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), a victim of this dreadful disease.

No one could have listened to these speeches which have been made without being deeply moved. I hope that the Government, also, will be moved to action.

Mr. Harold Davies: We have heard the arguments, and the case is well known to the Committee. It is especially to be noted that every hon. Member who represents a mining constituency or some other industrial area is, if at all possible, in the Chamber listening to the debate because of its utmost importance. The case was put precisely and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), and completely to the point by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas).
I, too, come from a mining family and represent a constituency which contains mining and pottery industries. It must be remembered that the pottery industry, also, comes into these considerations. We have been struggling together with the miners in north Staffordshire for years to have this anomaly removed. I do not want to make invidious comparisons between one Government and another, but I would repeat that this is a diminishing problem and that the amount of money involved is very small.
Whatever advice is given by the Treasury, it is time that some hon. Member or a Minister had the courage to twist the necks of those who say that these things cannot be done because of administrative difficulties. We can over-leap these administrative difficulties and an answer can be found. It is ridiculous that the man who was injured on a day in July, 1948, should receive£1 12s. 6d. less in allowance than a man injured two or three days later than that date.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made an appeal today. Will the Minister tell us how much this proposal would cost? He has the information at his elbow. Is he prepared to consider a formula to meet this point? Many of these people, it is sad to say, will not be living with us for very much longer. I had intended to go broadly into the history of this matter and to refer to the researches made by the Medical Research Council in an effort to prevent pneumoconiosis and byssinosis in these industries, but it would be unfair to do


that now and to make too long a speech when some of my miner colleagues may want to contribute to the debate.
Some of these miners went into the pits as young boys at a time when the Government appealed to them to cut coal to meet the country's needs. They cut the coal irrespective of safety devices and they produced the tonnage. As miners struggle to increase the tonnage, so they increase dust hazards. A graph of the incidence of pneumoconiosis in this period of intensive effort would show how the incidence climbed up among these young, virile, strong men.

Mrs. Slater: Would my hon. Friend not also include the large number of men and women who suffer from this disease, but who are never scheduled as having suffered from it until they die and a post-mortem is held?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
The point I was making was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), This fact is often forgotten. The nation owes these men something. The case has been made and it is no good reiterating the argument. Let us cut out the politics.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will say, "I cannot give the answer directly now, but I assure the Committee that I shall do something about it." This would prevent our having a Division and hon. Members opposite having to abstain. It would be a first-class act, not of mercy, but of honest-to-goodness justice to people who deserve it, and it would provide satisfaction for those of us who represent the pottery and mining areas.
Let us remember these old warriors of British industry and let us honour them by granting this request as a result of appeals from both sides of the Committee.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I speak in the debate as the first Member to take part who has neither been a miner nor speaks as a representative of miners. But I speak with some feeling on the subject, having worked for six years in the headquarters of the Transport and General Workers Union, handling compensation cases for workers on the docks, in transport, engineering and a

number of other occupations, including,those of ex-miners doing other light jobs after having been forced to leave the mines because of pneumoconiosis.
I was forced to the conclusion that there was no justice in this discrimination between those who had been injured or bad contracted disease before July, 1948, and those injured or diseased after that date. The depressing fact is that those who have argued this case today have argued it again and again over the years, and again and again have had the same stale excuses from Government spokesmen. We now have a new Minister, and we have a new Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who may be replying to the debate. We hope that there will be some new thinking on this point.
5.0 p.m.
One point on which I hope we get some comments is that there is, or should be, a parallel between the way the nation treats the casualties of industry and the way we treat our Service casualties. Indeed, the two schemes are very similar. The assessment for disability for industrial injury and for war casualty are similar. The supplementary benefits and and the like are almost identical.
We do not discriminate between the casualties of war. We pay broadly the same kind of pension to those injured in the 1914 war as we do to those injured in the 1939 war. To do anything else would be intolerable. One could imagine the reaction of the British Legion or other ex-Service groups if there were a different grade of benefits for those injured in the more recent war as compared with the injured of the 1914 war.
What, therefore, is the justification for the dividing line in terms of the casualties of industry? Obviously, it is not the cost. My hon. Friends have shown how small the cost would be when set against the total obligations under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The stock excuse to which we may be forced to listen again is that on 5th July, 1948, a different kind of scheme was introduced. Formerly, under the workmen's compensation arrangements, liability was upon the employer, but on 5th July, 1948, there was introduced the principle of disability pensions, insurance and all that.
I hope that this will not be elevated into a principle. It is not a principle.


If it were, the Government have already breached it, because they already pay supplementary allowances from the Industrial Injuries Fund to the old workmen's compensation cases. If they were not doing that—I do not suggest that they should not do it—it might be more consistent to pay nothing at all. The Government are, however, paying supplementary allowances. Therefore, the point before the Committee is whether these should be raised in common with benefits to be paid to other industrial casualties.
Admittedly, it is difficult to get an exact formula to do precise justice because of the percentage disability assessment under the new Act and the lack of a percentage disability assessment under the old Act. A rough and ready formula was, however, found a few years ago when the first supplementary allowances were paid. A rough and ready equality was achieved temporarily between the old and the newer casualties.
What is not justifiable is that since then, the gap between those injured since 1948 and those injured prior to that year has been allowed to reappear and, under the terms of the Bill, is to be widened. The benefits for the more recent industrial casualties will go up—and we welcome the fact—but this will widen the gap between them and those who are the subject of the Amendment. There is no justification for this iii principle.
We are dealing with people who were injured many years ago, many of them in conditions that were far less safe than people enjoy in industry today. Many people were injured because safety precautions in those days were not as good as they are today. Many people suffered from pneumoconiosis and the other industrial diseases because health precautions in industry, certainly in mining, were nothing as good as they are now.
We owe a special debt to those people. The standard of living has been built up partly by the sacrifices of those who paid the price of being industrial casualties in the past. Therefore, we should not tolerate a position in which they are left further and further behind. It is these people, who, because of their disability, find it difficult to do a job of work, who are the victims of unemployment in the areas now hit by unemployment. The Bill would not have come before us if it were not for the unemployment problem.
Therefore, we should be concerned especially to do justice to those people. Many of them—but not all—are elderly. A young boy aged 16 or 17 who was injured in 1946 or 1947 is still in his early thirties and will face a lifetime of disability. Therefore, what we do in this matter will affect some of these people for a long time ahead. It is time that we had new thinking from the Government and we urge the Minister to have a fresh look at the problem.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I should like to say a few words in support of the new Clause. The Minister is quite new in his Department. It is probably the first time that he and his two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries have had such an appeal put before them. If they do not respond to this appeal, which comes not only from this side of the Committee, but also from the benches opposite, it means that the humane feelings that most human beings possess are lacking in the Minister and even in the Government if they do not accept the principle of the Amendment.
Many cases have been put forward by my hon. Friends and I shall not, therefore, go into other individual cases, although, as I was the secretary of a miner's branch before I came to the House of Commons in 1959, the number of cases which I could quote are too numerous even to start thinking about.
The principle of the matter is important. I hope that when he replies the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not tell us what the Labour Government failed to do in 1948. If lie does, he will have some strong and bitter things said to him. So far, nothing of that kind has been said today. The purpose of the debate has been to prove to the Government the suffering which has been imposed unfairly and unjustly upon these people.
Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary know that there are men who were injured prior to 1948, who were miners before the commencement of the 1939 war but who, for other reasons, had gone into other industries, who during the war were directed back into the mines as part of the fulfilment of the war effort? A number of these men are amongst those who have suffered injury, who have lost an arm or a leg or who have broken down


in health because of accident or disease and are not being considered to the extent that they should be.
When it introduced the tremendous change in National Insurance in 1948, the Labour Government would, no doubt, have liked to bring within the orbit of the National Insurance Scheme every case throughout the country. Because of the sudden change in principle, however, some features had to be left to be dealt with in the future. Unfortunately, the opportunity did not arise. It is not sufficient for any member of the Government to say that in 1948 the Labour Government did not do this and, therefore, they are themselves absolved from the responsibility of doing something which is fair and just. I hope that that kind of argument will not be used by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
I should like to add a few words on behalf of many men and women, not only in mining, but throughout the whole of industry, who were injured during the period between 1924 to 1948, who are on slack time as a result of the country's economic circumstances and who lost a limb but were capable of going back to the same kind of work as they did before, possibly even for less remuneration.
By virtue of the fact that they are now working regularly, their partial compensation is not payable, because their wages are higher than they were then. Had they been injured after 5th July, 1948, these people would have been getting a percentage increase equivalent to that received by anyone who lost a limb or an eye or who suffered some other disablement after that date.
All these things ought to be examined in more detail than has ever been done. In our modern society we must be fairer and more just than our predecessors were. When we consider the kind of industry in which men and women had to work, the lack of thought and of human kindness among the employers of that day and the conditions which existed then, and which would not be tolerated in any industry today, we surely realise that we must be fairer to these men. These are the people whom we are forgetting and leaving behind year after year. If we are to give them any feeling of faith and justice, some-

thing must be done, and must be done now.
If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept this Amendment, I hope that he will accept the principle of it, will examine the whole problem, and will bring back to the House some recommendations which will give satisfaction to these people and make them realise that, even though they were injured before 5th July, 1948, we still have sympathy with them and give consideration to their suffering.

Mr. J. Griffiths: All hon. Members want to take action at once to help these cases. May I say a word about the history? The change from the old Workmen's Compensation Act to the new Industrial Injuries Scheme was the most radical of all changes in our social insurance scheme. It was a change in basic principle and in method and criterion, and it presented a very difficult problem. Let me confess at once that, after consultation with employers and workmen, and not being without experience myself, I found it the most difficult problem of all to find a way by which those who were already in benefit under the old Workmen's Compensation Act could be transferred to benefit under the new Act. The most difficult of all were those who were partially disabled under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.
I want to put the problem as it was in 1948 and to suggest how it can be overcome, because it is still a problem. What I could have done in 1948 under the terms of the Bill, and by regulation, was to bring the partially disabled into the new scheme by having their disability assessed on the basis of loss of faculties. Many of the partially disabled at that time, because of the working of the earnings rules, were getting the equivalent of full compensation for partial disability. The problem was that if I had assessed them under the new Act and paid them disability pensions—I went into this thoroughly and carefully with people of wide experience—in many cases the partially disabled would have received less under the new Act than under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
For the first time in our history, the payment for disablement in industry was moved from the employers and converted


to a social insurance scheme. This was the second radical change. There was a change in the method of assessing disability and a change in the method of meeting the liabilities.
At that time the plan was just beginning, but now it has been running for some time. At that time the only experience we had was the experience of war pensions, and I think that I am right in saying that the diversity of the disabilities and accidents in industry is much wider than in respect of war pensions. Because of that, I felt that if we were to take over the old cases the employers ought to make a contribution towards the liability, and I entered into discussions with them to see whether it was possible for this to happen.
I do not want to go over all that now, for a long time has passed. I am simply putting it on record. But I would emphasise that it must not be said that we did nothing for the old cases in 1948. That would not be true. To begin with, they were entitled to unemployability allowance and constant attendance allowance.
In addition—and, it turned out to be much more important—for the first time the disabled workman was able to get his disability pension and sickness benefit. Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act a workman who was receiving workmen's compensation could not at the same time receive sickness benefit. In the 1930s, in South Wales, the average compensation for totally disabled persons was 22s. 4d. a week.
5.15 p.m.
Having put that or record let me come up to the present time. We have been told of the number of old cases in the mining industry there are about 16,000, of whom roughly between one-third and a half are totally disabled and the rest are partially disabled.
I see no difficulty whatever about the Minister accepting the first new Clause—
Increase of benefits under Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts, 1951 and 1954.
That would bring the totally disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Act up to the same benefit as the 100 per cent. disabled under the Industrial Injuries Act. I see no reason why the Minister should not do that now. It is not very complicated or difficult, and it is absolutely fair. I hope that he will,

therefore, at least in principle, if not in the wording on the Order Paper, accept that obligation.
Before we leave the new Clause and the Bill we all want to ensure that the totally disabled under the old Workmen's Compensation Act get the same benefit as the 100 per cent. disabled under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. It may be that the draftsmen will feel that the words of the new Clause are not the right words, but the Minister should accept what all hon. Members of the Committee want—to make up this difference about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has spoken. Surely we can agree on that.
The second point is more difficult. I turn to the second new Clause of my hon. Friend—"Extension of benefits to certain disabled persons".

Mr. Bernard Taylor: My right hon. Friend has been drawing a distinction and making a comparison between pre-1948 and post-1948 accident cases. Does he agree that the post-1948 cases have an advantage over the pre-1948 cases inasmuch as it is less difficult now, with the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, to get damages at common law?

Mr. Griffiths: Very much so. That is often forgotten, but it is important. At present, a man can get compensation or industrial injuries benefit and, at the same time, in certain circumstances, and subject to the law, he can also get substantial sums under the employers' liability, whereas previously if he received workmen's compensation he could not have employers' liability and vice versa.
I want to say this not only for myself but for my colleagues: we should take these things together—the industrial injuries benefit and the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. I know what the abolition of that doctrine has cost the National Coal Board. We have no reason to be anything but proud of the steps which we took in 1948, but now we have to go further. I see no reason why the Minister should not accept our proposal about total disability whereby the totally disabled under the old Workmen's Compensation Act would be put on exact parity with the 100 per cent. cases under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
The second question is that of the partials, and how to find an equivalent method which will give them what we propose for the totally disabled. This is more difficult, and I am sure that my hon. Friends know this perfectly well. We should all be wrong if we thought that it was not more difficult, but I do not think that it is impossible of solution.
The Minister has the industrial Injuries Advisory Council and he has frequent consultations with the employers and with the T.U.C. I believe that the employers would be as anxious to do this as would be the miners' union or any other trade union. At any rate, I hope that they would be equally anxious to do this because the Industrial Injuries scheme lifted a considerable burden from them. I think they ought to recognise the fact that one of the changes which we made—I was responsible for it—was that whereas before the total responsibility rested on them it is now shared.
I am sure that some formula can be devised by which the partially disabled should not be left in the lurch. I am sure that the Minister, with the help of the representative bodies and the persons to whom I have referred and with the help of his Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will be able to do that. I hope, therefore, that he will accept in principle these two proposals. The Minister could not tell me last night, but promised to tell me today how much money is in the Fund. A very interesting thing about it is that it does not cost the Government a penny. What do they pay towards it? This is not Government money; this is our money, and I hope that the Minister will leave the matter to a free vote.
It is different with the National Insurance Scheme, and some day I hope to have a chance of discussing why. As it happens, the Industrial Injuries Scheme is in clover. Indeed, so good were the finances of the scheme that when the last Bill was brought forward in 1961 the then Minister said that he had too much money in the "kitty". That is what the then Minister, who is now the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, told us—there was too much money, too much balance, too much surplus in the Fund. We were getting more money than we needed. So the Minister cut the contribution by 1d.
from the employer and 1d. from the employee.
I said at the time that I deeply regretted his doing that. I thought that it was the wrong thing to do. By cutting off that 1d. we have lost£18 million to the Fund. Does not 1d. from each come to£9 million or£10 million a year? I think that that ought to be remembered, but I believe that even now the Fund is in a very good position and can meet this extra cost. I believe that if it were necessary to go to both sides of industry and ask them for another 1d. they would be prepared to pay it. But I do not think there is any need to do that. I believe that the extra involved can be covered by the Fund as it is, especially having regard to the fact, as I said, that two years ago the then Minister said that there was a surplus in the Fund.
One final word to the Minister, and I hope that what I am going to say will not be too much out of order. It concerns a matter which is worrying me and worrying everyone in the mining industry. There was a time not so long ago when we thought that we had really conquered pneumoconiosis. I have seen all the recent figures, and we now face a problem. The proportion of anthracite miners disabled by this disease was always higher than in any other section of miners in the country. It was true then, but is not true now. It is changing, and is one of the consequences of mechanisation. It is one of the things which, as an old coal miner, even now I sometimes do not understand because one of the contributory factors of pneumoconiosis is explosives. I hoped that one day machines would do away with the use of explosives, but the amount used is increasing and, therefore, we get this combination. These men are the old cases.
During the last General Election I took a friend to my constituency. We went to one of my valleys and met some of the miners. I said to one, "How are you?" He said, "Not bad, considering that I am 30." I went to another one and said, "How are you?" He said, "Not bad considering that I am 40." The friend who was with me thought, quite naturally, that the men were referring to their ages. They were not. What they were saying was that they were not bad because they were only 30 or 40 per cent. disabled. That is a language of its own.
There is something between£200 million and£300 million in the Fund, almost Al of which has been contributed by workers and employers. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will decide this afternoon to deal with the matter in the way I have indicated. The problem of the totally disabled can, I think, be easily overcome, but in the case of the partials it is more difficult, though not impossible. I hope that the Minister will accept the two proposals, because I am sure that that would be the wish of every hon. Member in the Committee.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I hope that my intervention at this stage will be helpful. I wish to say how very impressed I have been by the arguments put forward from both sides of the Committee. As the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said—he very often sums up these matters very succinctly—this is something which it is obviously possible to do in the case of the totally disabled even though it would not be possible to do it in the way suggested in the new Clause. As the Tight hon. Gentleman says, for the partially disabled it is more difficult.
What I would undertake to the Committee to do, if the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) will withdraw the Clause, is to give urgent consideration to the matter. I cannot undertake that this Bill will be the right vehicle for making this change, but I will give urgent consideration to seeing how far we can carry the principle into effect. Obviously, I cannot go further this afternoon. In the circumstances, I think that the Committee will excuse me from going in detail into all the arguments, or from replying in detail to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has raised today, although, if he wishes, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer them.
I am sorry that I missed some of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I was out of the Chamber for a short while. If the Committee will accept that undertaking, I shall be glad to consider the matter as one of urgency and I hope that, having said that, the hon. Member for Bedwellty will find it possible to withdraw his Clause.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Are we to understand what the right hon.

Gentleman has said—this is how I understood it—in the sense that he really does believe that, given the time, he will be able to accept the content and purpose of the new Clause and assimilate it into present legislation?

Mr. Macpherson: I hope that the Committee will not press me to go further than I have. I have undertaken to give urgent and, I assure the Committee, most sympathetic consideration to implementing the principle so far as it can be done.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have sat here throughout the whole debate, and I think that it would have been wrong if I had not tried to catch your eye, Mr. Blackburn, since I have the privilege to represent part of a city the people of which have suffered more from these industrial diseases than have others in any other part of the world. I join with my hon. Friends from Stoke-on-Trent in adding force to the plea which has been put to the Minister. One of them, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), who is sitting beside me now, has lived among the people who have suffered in the way I have described. The other, a great soul, who is at present lying in bed himself, has specialised in the respiratory afflictions caused by industrial disease and has earned the gratitude of the working class of our great industrial area.
There are Blue Books and records of statistics in the Library which go to prove what I have to say. The facts are well known. I can see in my mind's eye now, as clearly as I can see anyone in this Chamber, the two processions of people in the city of Stoke-on-Trent over thirty years ago, one composed of men and women going to sign on in their thousands because of unemployment, the other composed of people with cream-white faces going to meet their friends or going to the parks and recreation grounds. In those days, hundreds of people in Stoke-on-Treat and north Staffordshire generally suffered from what was known then as silicosis and potter's rot, the disease now referred to as penumoconiosis. We know the cumulative effect of the legacy we have inherited from those dark days.
Today, there are not only the miners who have suffered from these diseases over the years but there are new cases of


miners being similarly afflicted. One of the most modern pits in the world is situated in my constituency. My hon. Friend and I have had the privilege of going to the coal face and seeing the mechanised processes there, the beautiful lighting, and the best possible conditions for work. But we know that, in spite of what has been done, the increased mechanisation which makes it possible to mine coal more quickly than ever before is giving rise to more dust. In spite of efforts made to minimise its effect, the dust is still causing pneumoconiosis. Water has been applied, sand has been applied, the results of research have been put into effect, but the dust still rises where the men get the coal today at a tempo which has to be seen to be believed.
I pay a tribute to all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken. I have listened today to one of the most informative debates I have ever heard in the House of Commons. It is to the credit of the Leader of the House that he has been in his place almost throughout. The Minister himself has done the same. He went out for only a short time. If he went out for a cup of tea, I do not blame him; I have been very inclined to do the same, although I did not because I was so keen to speak that I did not wish to miss my opportunity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Lady, the two Parliamentary Secretaries, have been with us throughout.
Thus, not only will the debate be on record in cold print but those four right hon. and hon. Members of the Government will have listened to the informative and sincere speeches which have been made by my hon. Friends, among them men who have worked right at the coal face, and one of whom is suffering from pneumoconiosis himself. Those of us who represent the city of Stoke-on-Trent associate ourselves with all that has been said.
Now, a few words about the pottery industry itself. Those who have spoken have, I think, done justice to the mining industry. The pottery industry, as a result of the enormous increase in output, is suffering to an extent greater than is usually realised. I have seen wonderful improvements during the thirty years of my association with the area. I give

all credit where it is due, to the trade union movement in particular, to the medical profession which has served us so well and carried out research and development based upon its findings, to the manufacturers and to the many public-spirited men and women whose efforts in accumulating knowledge and experience have led to great progress.
But people still suffer from pneumoconiosis, no matter how nearly perfect the conditions are. No matter how earnestly people desire to minimise the effect of dust, it is still there. I was very pleased, therefore, when the Minister gave his undertaking. I hope that, before we part with the new Clause, the Minister will give a further undertaking that he will implement his pledge within a given time. It will be for him to consult the Leader of the House and his colleagues on what the time should be. But this suffering has persisted for so long, and we have such an unanswerable case, that, while we appreciate the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman has given, we feel it reasonable to ask him to go a stage further and put a time limit upon the implementation of his undertaking.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has sat here throughout the whole debate and was fully prepared and eager to press the case upon the Minister. However, having regard to his intervention a few minutes ago she feels with me that, out of courtesy to the Minister, I should make just a few remarks.
The Minister has earned the Committee's respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in rising so readily to give such a full assurance which undoubtedly satisfies my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel so deeply about this matter. It would be wrong, I think, to ask the Minister to find a solution in time to put it in the Bill because the Bill itself is urgent and we do not want to delay it. Nevertheless, the Minister gave a pledge—and I am sure that it was sincerely and honourably given—that he will give urgent attention—it is more than "earnest" attention—to this matter, and that we must accept.
It so happens that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), on Friday week on a Private Member's Motion, will be raising


many questions relating to industrial injuries. Can I hope that that day, 15th February, will provide the Minister with an opportunity of making a further statement? We shall, of course, understand if he has not found a solution by then. We do not want to he unreasonable with the Minister, but, having had this response from him, those who tomorrow, indeed tonight, will hear of this assurance will pray for the day when we hear more and will hope for a solution to a grievance which they have so long felt and which is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am sure that the Committee has been most impressed by the powers of advocacy and deep feeling of nay right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I can understand why, in the face of this array of wide experience and deep feeling, the Minister has felt that he must respond to the mood and spirit of the Committee. This is something of a triumph for our Parliamentary procedure. Had the right hon. Gentleman turned a deaf ear to our pleas, we should have lost confidence in the ability of this Committee to impose its will on the Executive.
Therefore, may I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends that we are satisfied with the assurance which the Minister has given because we know that he will implement it and that he will not unduly delay doing so. The word of his own choice was "urgent". He knows that he must not only come here very soon with some proposals but that they must be satisfactory proposals.
In these circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) to respond to the appeal of the Minister and to withdraw his proposed new Clause content in the knowledge that in the several hours that we have discussed this matter we have done a really good job of work.

Mr. Finch: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(PROVISION TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN SCHEDULE I OF NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1946.)

Sir Spencer Summers: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, column 3,

to leave out "8s. 8½d." and insert "8s. 2½d.".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 8, line 30, column 3, to leave out "4s. 8½d." and insert "4s. 5½d.", in page 9, line 21, column 3, to leave out "8s. 8½d." and insert "8s. 2½d.", and in page 9, line 24, column 3, to leave out "12s. 8½d." and insert "11s. 11½d.".

Sir S. Summers: I hope that the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown good will to the previous proposed new Clause does not mean that he has exhausted the supply that he has brought with him for today when he replies to this Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to reduce the contribution from women who are contracted out of the graduated pension scheme. If my right hon Friend does not feel justified in varying the figures in the Bill for women only, I for one have no objection if he says that he will do something for the men in addition. I should perhaps explain why I have sought to vary only the figures relating to women.
I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with the reason why the contributions of those who are contracted out exceed the contributions of those in the scheme. We are told that the amount of excess paid by those contracted out is a measure of the loss to the Fund of that contribution which exceeds the contribution necessary to provide the graduated benefit. When the former figures were established under the 1961 Act, there was an increase for men of 1s. 7d. a week and an increase for women of 10d. a week over and above the contribution paid by the flat rate contributors in the scheme.
5.45 p.m.
We had quoted yesterday the extent to which men's earnings have gone up since former days. I use that phrase advisedly because the Minister chooses to take the period of three years, when the growth was about£3 a week, and I have chosen to take the period of two years, when it was about£1 a week. But even if we take the period which the Minister considers is more reasonable, the increase in respect of women, far from being£3 a week, is only£1 7s.
It has been confirmed that not only are the earnings of women about half of those


of men, but that the rate of growth has kept pace more or less in the same fashion and is also about half. That means that if the same addition over and above the flat rate contributions demanded from women is the same as that demanded from men, women would find it very much more difficult to meet it because their earnings have not increased at the same rate as those of men.
Under the figures in the Bill, a man who is contracted out is required to pay an additional 10d. and a woman who is contracted out is required to pay an additional 8d. My reason therefore for seeking to reduce the additional burden placed by the Bill on contracted-out women is to get a little closer to fairness as between one and the other. The effect of amending the figures in the Schedule on the lines suggested in the Amendment would be to reduce the increase in the contribution paid by contracted-out women from 8d. to 2d. They would, therefore, still acknowledge the principle that they are contributing something over above flat-rate contributions because they are contracted out. However, the relief would be significant, and, keeping the principle of producing like contributions from employee and employer, I have sought to adjust the figures in such a way that 1s. a side extra will be paid instead of 1s. 6d. a side, as is proposed in the Bill.
The other figures in the Amendment are consequential, and I do not think I need detain the Committee by elaborating them. Very few people understand these additional burdens, and they cause a certain amount of resentment, particularly when it is thought that the benefits of the scheme from which they have been contracted out will not improve just because we make changes in the House of Commons. They tend to say, "Why should I pay more when the scheme from which I hope one day to draw benefits does not improve? Just because other people choose to alter their circumstances, why should I contribute more since my circumstances have not altered?" It is with that in mind that I have sought to minimise the impact of the Bill on women, and I hope that I have said enough to indicate—

Mr. John McKay: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on behalf of women who earn more than£9? If so,

he is speaking of a very small percentage of women. What he proposes will not affect the general situation very much. When one analyses the position as it affects women, the hon. Gentleman must agree that, although they may get a little extra in benefits, they are not getting more than half the wages of men.

Sir S. Summers: It does not at all follow that the women who are now being asked to pay an additional 8d. will get something like half wages. If there are a very few concerned, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate, it will make it very much easier for the Minister to accept the Amendment because the effect on the Treasury will be correspondingly small. To that extent I am grateful for the intervention.
I do not wish to delay the Committee unreasonably. I think I have expressed myself fairly clearly on this point, and I look forward to hearing that the Minister can do something to alleviate the concern of the people who are affected by the scheme.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) certainly sounds persuasive in the way in which he has put it forward, but there are one or two factors which ought to be borne in mind and which I feel I should put forward from a rather different point of view.
The first point is surely this. There are also the women earning more than£9 a week who are not contracted out. They make a contribution proportionate to their earnings. Those who are contracted out pay a flat-rate contribution, and the general idea of the flat-rate contribution is that it should make the same overall contribution to the flat-rate benefits as the contribution that is made by those who are not contracted out—those who are in the graduated scheme.
One of the fallacies in my hon. Friend's argument is that he has quoted the average earnings of women, but it does not by any means follow that the average earnings of women who are contracted out have only moved by the same amount as the average earnings of all women have moved. One expects that those who are contracted out would tend to be in the higher brackets. I


know that that is not invariably so, but even if that were not so there is another consideration to be borne in mind.
According to my hon. Friend, these women say, "I am receiving nothing more in benefits. Why should I make an additional contribution?". That, of course, applies to all contracted-out people. But it is not true, because they are all receiving additional benefits. They are all receiving the additional flat-rate benefits. As the House well knows, the additional flat-rate contributions do not pay for the additional flat-rate benefits. There has to be supplementation from elsewhere, and that supplementation comes from the contracted-out scheme and from the graduated pension scheme.
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that women should make an appropriate contribution as well as men. As my hon. Friend said, when the scheme was first devised women were called upon to make a much smaller contracted-out contribution than men—10d. as against Is. 7d. Under the proposals now before the Committee, their total National Insurance contributions will go up from 7s. 1½d. to 8s. 8½d., whereas the totals for men go up from 8s. 10½d. to 10s. 8½d.—by 1s. 10d. It is proposed that the women's total should go up by only 1s. 7d., so they are still in a favoured position in comparison with men. I do not think they ought to be placed in a more favoured position than that.
After all, everybody contributes under the graduated pension scheme in accordance with their earnings—men as well as women. While it may be true that proportionately to the total working force of men, there are more earning, say, over£18 and more earning over£9 than there are among women, nevertheless there should be a reasonable balance between the contracted-out contributions for men and for women. I do not think this is an unreasonable balance that has now been decided upon, and I am afraid that I cannot see my way to accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that, on the one hand, in principle it is not right to exempt those who are contracted out from making a reasonable contribution to the general flat-rate benefits, and, on the other hand, that when we are dealing with a graduated scheme

of this sort it is not unreasonable that everybody's contribution should be much the same, irrespective of their sex.

Mr. Houghton: What the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) is doing, as I am sure he well knows, is to reopen the box of tricks which contains the complicated finances of the National Insurance Scheme, and in particular the relationship between the graduated scheme and the flat-rate scheme.
One of the most difficult things to explain to people who have been contracted out is why they have to pay more in flat-rate contribution than those who have not been contracted out. Under the proposals in this Bill the man who has been contracted out will, I think, pay 2s. 5d. a week more in flat-rate contributions than the man who is within the graduated scheme, and a woman will have to pay Is. 6d. more if she has contracted out than a woman who is within the graduated scheme.
Scores of people in this position have written to me saying, "Why is this? Why do we have to pay more for the same benefits than those who are within the graduated scheme?" Some time ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to make a statement which might be used for the enlightenment of those who are anxious to solve this mystery. It only made confusion worse confounded, and I was thrown back once more on to my own amateur attempts to explain how this comes about.
I put it this way: since the graduated contribution is raided by the Minister to help him finance the flat-rate scheme, it follows that if one does not pay graduated contributions one cannot be raided. Therefore, to make sure that people do not get off scot free, he imposes this extra tax on them. That seems to me to be the simple explanation of the matter. The 2s. 5d. more and the 1s. 6d. more in fiat-rate contributions respectively for men and for women who have been contracted out is the measure of tribute which the Minister exacts from them because he cannot lay his hands on their graduated contributions. There it is in a nutshell.
As for the Amendment, this financial arrangement is really nothing to do with the relative earnings of men and women or the comparative rate at which the earnings of men and women have gone


up. It has to do with the balance of finance in the contributions as related to the flat-rate benefits.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member, who is very sophisticated in these matters, may like to join with me at this moment in closing the lid on the box of tricks. Perhaps one day we will open it again and have a real good go.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I should like to make a very brief comment on this Schedule. It so happens that the Schedule dealing with the contributions comes before the Schedule dealing with the benefits. I mention that because shortly I shall be moving some Amendments for the improvement of benefits. I cannot help it that we are putting the cart before the horse. I enter a caveat against anyone saying, "Ah, we have passed the First Schedule, which deals with contributions, so what is the good of coming along now with proposals for improving the benefits? You should have said something about it when dealing with the contributions." I hope that I have silenced that critic if he is present in the Committee.
The second point is this, that these new flat-rate contributions are, I think, a convincing warning that the Minister is really reaching the limits of the use of the flat-rate contribution for financing this scheme. He must realise, I am sure, that he has become the captive of the flat-rate contribution. I shall not enlarge on this point; it may emerge in the course of my remarks later; but it is quite obvious that so long as we retain the flat-rate contribution there will be limits to what the Minister can do in improving benefits—so long as he continues this method of financing them.
I do not say that, with the rise in incomes, in wages and earnings, we have reached the absolute limit. I have heard it said a number of times before that flat-rate contribution has gone as high as it can. Well, we have found it has not gone as high as it can. It has gone up several times since then, and here we are again, and I do not deny that the Minister may find it possible still to raise the flat-

rate contribution, but he will not be able to use it to the extent necessary to provide the finance which the modern concept of social security demands and that will be the inhibiting factor in the Minister's thinking out the future of the National Insurance Scheme.
Later, I shall probably ask him, "Which did he think of first, the benefits or contributions?" Did he say, "You have to cut your coat according to your cloth and you cannot put up contributions beyond this point"? Or did he think of the benefits and include them in the Bill, and say, "Now how do we pay for them?" I do not know which he did. Probably he will say he thought of both together and brought them nicely into balance, symmetrically and scientifically and all the rest of it.
But there must be a starting point in these matters. When we are thinking about National Insurance we must think of something before we think of something else, and on the whole it is the benefits we think of first. I would, at any rate.

Sir S. Summers: I should like the hon. Gentleman to make clear, apropos his opening remarks, whether he is now seeking to open the door for the flat-rate contribution to enable the Minister to meet all the demands or whether he regards the door as slammed so that some other method must be advanced to finance the benefits he seeks to increase.

Mr. Houghton: No. I am being absolutely neutral on the Schedule at the moment.
It is not how we would do it. I am just giving a warning, just drawing the attention of the Committee and of all concerned to the fact that fiat-rate contributions are going up once again and that that raises once more the whole question whether the flat-rate principle shall be retained at least for the purpose of contributions.
I made sonic remarks yesterday about this being a form of taxation. The Minister said, "Yes," but with this qualification, that this is a form of taxation directly related to benefits of citizenship. He said that there is a strict relationship between contributions and benefits, which, of course, is true, but what I am


saying is that I think that this Schedule points obviously to the limits on the use of the flat-rate contribution for the purpose of improving the benefits. That, in fact, is proved even in the Bill, because this Schedule alone does not give the Minister what he wants. He has had to extend the span of income to be brought within the graduated scheme from£15 to£18 in order to give him another£48 million to throw into the general funds to finance graduated benefits and the rates of benefits provided in the Second Schedule.

Mr. B. Taylor: I do not want to argue the merits or demerits of a flat-mate contribution at this stage, but while we are on the question of contributions as set out in this Schedule I Should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the size of the contribution for self-employed people. I know that compared with the total number of contributors they are a small group—1 million or 2 million; I do not know the figure exactly now. However, in addition to the smallness of their number they are, so to speak, a mixed bag. They embrace Members of Parliament, for instance, ministers of religion, shopkeepers.
It is towards this section of the community that I want to draw the attention of the Minister. When he is thinking in terms of contributions I hope that he will pay some attention to this section. There are many shopkeepers who have very small businesses in the side streets of some of our towns and cities, and their turnover may be very small and their profits may be accordingly small. It is the fact that by these proposals we are levying a contribution from upon the self-employed, of whom those people form a part, of 16s. 2d. a week. I think that is the correct figure.
I just want to draw the Minister's attention to that and to put in a plea for them, since this wild fall very heavily on the people in the self-employed class.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In response to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), I should like to make it quite clear that we did give very careful consideration to the contribution of the self-employed person. We do very fully appreciate that among the self-employed are many people whose profits or earnings are rather low, and that is why the contribution is as low

as it is. After all, the self-employed person has got to do duty both for employer and employee, and he receives full insurance cover except in respect of unemployment benefit; and unemployment benefit does not absorb a very great proportion—I think a matter of about 5 per cent. in the normal way—of the total expenditure of the National Insurance Fund.
When we take that into account I really do not think that the contribution of the self-employed is unduly high. For the smaller income people, of course, the benefits which are gained by their contributions are all-important, and compared with the benefits which are gained I do not think that it can be said that this contribution is too high. I can assure the hon. Member that we did give the most careful consideration to that aspect of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(PROVISION TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN SCHEDULE 2 PART I OF NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1946.)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out columns 2 to 5 and to insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): With this Amendment can be discussed the following:

In line 27, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

In line 29, column 2, leave out "38 6" and insert "42 0".

In line 41, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

In line 60, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

In page 12, line 15, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
67 6 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

In line 17, column 2, leave out "38 6" and insert "42 0".

In line 18, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

In line 25, column 2, leave out "37 6" and insert "42 0".

In line 30, leave out columns 2 to 4 and insert:
45 0 / 22 6 / 12 6".

In line 31, leave out columns 2 to 5 and insert:
80 0 / 22 6 / 12 6 / 45 0".

Mr. Houghton: As you have said, Mr. Blackburn, this Amendment can be taken in conjunction with a number more, and the debate will, in fact, cover all the main National Insurance benefits, excluding widows' benefits and married women's sickness and unemployment benefits, which have been singled out from the list of Amendments for later debate if we so wish.
I said a moment ago that the First Schedule which deals with contributions comes before the Second Schedule which deals with benefits. Therefore, I shall proceed straight away to deal with benefits and shall not for the moment say anything about contributions.
These Amendments ask for the standard National Insurance benefit and for retirement pension, sickness and unemployment benefit and widow's allowance to be increased to£4 a week as against£37s. 6d.in the Schedule, and for a married couple£6 5s. as against£5 9s. In other words, we are asking for 12s. 6d. a week more than the Government propose on the main benefits for single persons and 16s. a week more than the Government proposed on the main benefits for a married couple.
Carrying the comparison still further, the Amendments ask for 22s. 6d. a week more than the existing benefit of 57s. 6d. a week for a single person and 32s. 6d. a week more than the existing benefit of£4 12s. 6d. for a married couple. These Amendments are asking for substantial improvements—in comparative terms, they are very substantial improvements—on existing benefits and on what the Minister is proposing in the Schedule.
I think I ought to say a word about where these amounts come from. On Second Reading, I mentioned that the Social Insurance Committee of the Trades Union Congress had been to see the Minister and had asked that he should raise National Insurance benefits for a single person to£3 19s. 6d. Not only on this occasion but on a previous occasion, the Trades Union Congress has

asked the Minister to raise benefits, and each time it has put its figure at the then existing National Assistance scale plus the average addition for rent allowance.
If we take the existing National Assistance scale for a single householder of 57s. 6d. and add to it the average addition for rent of 22s., we get£3 19s. 6d., and that is what the Trades Union Congress asks from the Minister. We have turned the£3 19s. 6d. into£4 not only because it is a rounder figure but because it is scarcely worth while continually repeating "£3 19s. 6d." when for all practical purposes we are talking about£4 a week. To arrive at£6 5s. for a married couple we have added an increased wife's benefit.
6.15 p.m.
I see that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was referring to this sort of level of benefits in the debate on 13th July, 1962, she said in column 1768 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that if we were to put up pensions to£4 a week for a single person and£6 8s. 6d. for a married couple, certain financial consequences would follow. I refer to this at the moment only to show that she had related£4 to£6 8s. 6d., whereas for reasons of our own we have related it to£6 5s. If it became of any importance to discuss the difference between£6 5s. and£6 8s. 6d. we might pursue that a little further, but I am sure that at the moment the Minister is so appalled at the£6 5s. that we need not bother to discuss refinements as between£6 55. and£6 8s. 6d.
I attach great importance to the representations of the Trades Union Congress. I assume that when the Trades Union Congress asks for something, first of all, it means it, and, secondly, it is fully aware of the financial consequences of what it is asking for. It is not just a little pressure group which demands something without counting the cost or without looking at many other aspects of its proposal. So we must look at the T.U.C. as being a responsible body in this connection. It is speaking for a very large number of organised workers, and whatever it says to the Minister as regards either benefits or contributions, its view will undoubtedly influence the attitude of 8–9 million workers at least who will be involved in any changes one way or the other.
Just after the Trades Union Congress saw the Minister, this Bill was introduced. But since then—only yesterday—the Minister has announced improvements in the National Assistance scales. So whatever may have been the arithmetical construction of the proposals made by the Trades Union Congress a few weeks ago, they are significantly altered by the Minister's announcement yesterday about improved National Assistance scales.
The new scales are to be: for a married couple 104s. 6d. a week and for a single householder 63s. 6d. a week, to which is to be added the rent allowance, averaging at present about 22s. a week. I am not going to say whether this means that the Trades Union Congress will see the Minister again and say that it has revised its figures in the light of the Minister's announcement of the new National Assistance scales. It is not for me to say what the Trades Union Congress will do; I was not even able to say that when I was on its General Council, and still less am I able to do so now. All I would point out in this context is that on the construction placed upon the word "subsistence" by the Trades Union Congress, the Minister presumably must regard its proposals of a fortnight or three weeks ago as already out-dated by the announcement of improved National Assistance scales.
For my purpose this afternoon, what I want to impress upon the Committee is that our proposals to amend the Second Schedule will give benefits lower than the new National Assistance scales after the addition of the rent allowance. So the first test we must apply to our figures, high as they may seem to conventional thought about the level of National Insurance benefits, is that they are lower than the new National Assistance scales plus additions for rent.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is keeping up the appearance—I will not call it a pretence, for we must be kind to him for the rest of the day—of a subsistence principle in the benefits of the scheme, but if he is then the proposals in this Schedule fall down on the very first test, the acid test of adequacy, because they are below what the National Assistance Board is now prescribing as the minimum standard of living in Britain today.
I think the Committee will agree that we must dispense with the use of the word "subsistence" in connection with National Insurance benefits when not only the Minister's proposals but even our own fall below the National Assistance minimum.
Another test that can be applied to our proposals is comparison with the existing level of earnings. This is a very significant test of the adequacy of any social security benefit. The Minister quoted on Second Reading the fact that the benefits are ahead of the increases in the cost of living, wages and earnings since last time and are miles ahead of the rise in the cost of living since 1948. I speak from memory, but I believe his comparison was that benefits had increased 160 per cent. since 1948 as compared with the 71 per cent. increase in the cost of living since then.
It would all sound most impressive if it were not completely irrelevant. One can double poverty and one is still poor. This is a question of contemporary standards. The truth is that all of us in our approach to social security today have abandoned the concept of subsistence contained in the Beveridge approach. It is not good enough now. Television sets and plenty of other things were not included in Beveridge terms of subsistence. Subsistence, as understood in the Beveridge Report, was, as I have said many times, the pre-war public assistance standard hotted up to take account of the increased cost of living during the war.
Now I come to earnings, because this really is an index of great importance. The Minister's proposals raise the single benefits to about one-fifth to one-quarter of the average male pay packet. That average, for the first week of October last, was£15 17s. 3d. The average earned in manufacturing industries was£16 6s. 10d. But taking account of October's average male pay packet, married couples under the Government's new proposals will get about one-third.

Sir S. Summers: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if such things as agriculture and many other services were included in the statistics his figures should be very different?

Mr. Houghton: I do not know how different. The hon. Gentleman is asking


we to agree with him in general terms. I do not think that there would necessarily be a difference. There is plenty of room to play with if he wants it that way, because the benefits in the Bill are only one-third of the average figure. Thus, if he reduces that figure to£15, or£14 or£13 or even£12, there will still be quite a lot of room. The difference between earnings and the figures now proposed in this Bill still represents the measure of the fall in family income. It represents the degree of the fall in the standard of living when a couple cease getting full earnings and get National Insurance benefits instead.
Now I come to our proposals, and I want to impress their merits on the Committee. They would raise the single benefit to nearly one-quarter of the average male pay packet and the benefit for married couples to a little more than one-third but less than half. That is the test of comparison. Of course, there is another test which I think many who are not statistically inclined will always use, and so it is about as good as any other. It is the pragmatic one which any person can make without the aid of a single figure—personal experience, summed up in the question "Is£3 7s. 6d. a week enough to live on?" One will get the answer no matter whom one asks.
Another question is, "Is£5 9s. 0d. a week enough for a married couple to live on? Is it enough for their fuel and clothing and all their other domestic needs?" The universal answer would be, "No". But, of course, the Minister says that he has never advanced the case that these amounts are enough to live on. He says—and the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is excellent at this argument—that they are not enough to live on but that nobody has to live on them.
The right hon. Gentleman in an interview with a magazine some months ago said that these benefits were a "foundation payment". In other words, he said:
I merely lay the floor".
He becomes, in this Bill, a kind of floor polisher saying, "I will lay the floor. I will at least see that you do not fall through it. But if you cannot exist on your social security, then I will tell you what to do. Have you an occupational pension? Have you personal savings?
Do you have help from relatives? All these will help provide additional shelter. But if you are really stuck I will give you the address of the nearest office of the National Assistance Board."
That is really what the Minister says. Therefore, I ask him how he defines the foundation payment. How does he determine it? One can play with the word "subsistence" and look at earnings and wages or find some kind of criterion if one looks for it. But will the right hon. Gentleman say here and now how he determines a foundation payment? How does he decide how low the floor should be? When he decides that he wants to raise it, what considerations govern his decision?
When the night hon. Gentleman made his statement on the increases, I asked what criteria he used. He trotted out the dusty old answer that the cost of living had not risen anything like as high as the increases in the benefits. But that is not really the basis on which he decided how big these benefits should be. I therefore ask him to say to what he relates the improvements in this Schedule. Is it wages or earnings? Or is it the cost of living?
We on these benches have laid bare the secret of how we got at the figures in our proposals. Will he now be equally frank about his figures? We would then know where we were. We would know how he thought, as he knows how we think. Are these proposals the product of his judgment of what the economy will stand, or of what contributions he can impose, or of what the Chancellor says about the Exchequer contribution, or of what Prime Minister says about fighting back?
6.30 p.m.
Has the right hon. Gentleman been long enough at his Ministry to set his compass and get his bearings on the chart of social security? Where is he making for? He must have been very pleasantly surprised to have received instructions from the Cabinet that he must increase National Insurance benefits. I have no doubt that he thought that that was a very good beginning to what might otherwise be a dreary job. He was sent for not with his resignation in his pocket—he had not thought of it at that stage—but to be told that he must improve National Insurance


benefits and must do something about National Assistance and must not raise the flat-rate contribution too high and, therefore, that he should have another raid on the graduated contribution. All that was told to him in the Cabinet Room.
He probably asked, "What am I to put them up to?" He was told to go away and think about it. He was told, "We can tell you shat the Chancellor of the Exchequer can spend about£28 million more out of the Exchequer contribution. You can to work it on that. You can take the 1959 Act and from that you can make increases on the flat-rate contribution and so much more on the graduated contribution and build up a total figure of£212 million out of the paltry£28 million extra which the Chancellor is prepared to give."
Where is he now? What is he to do about the future course of National Insurance? He is undoubtedly the prisoner of the flat-rate contribution which largely governs his room for manoeuvre with the level of benefits. His predecessor found an escape from all the inhibitions of the flat-rate contribution by turning to the attractive idea of a graduated pension scheme, which the Labour Party had put forward in 1957, and he found a devious use for it, for he used the extra money from that source to support increases in fiat-rate benefits.
There is nothing frightening in our proposals in the Amendment. I shall be told how much they will cost, and I have said something before now about the conventional use of the word "cost" in this context. It will not cost the Government more in cash than the increase in the Exchequer contribution. The other cost will go on the contributors. The hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
If we were to put up pensions to£4 a week for a single person and£6 8s. 6d. for a married couple the total cost would be an extra£490 million, of which National Insurance would take£425 million, industrial injuries£25 million, and war pensions nearly£40 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1768–9.]
The Government always want to add up the bill to make the task look absolutely impossible. They take a figure and put a bicycle pump to it and add two noughts and then say that the final figure is beyond the nation's capacity. It is not beyond the nation's capacity. If the

nation wants this level of social security, it is quite able to pay for it. My complaint against the Government and against all the influences which are at work on the domestic spending of the nation today is that they are all turning away from more social security towards more consumer expenditure.
We have to get new social targets and then these benefits and this cost will fall into their proper place. There is no reason whatever why the cost should necessarily increase the flat-rate contribution by any specified amount. The whole thing is wide open and needs amending legislation. The flat-rate contribution can be made anything and the graduated contribution can be adjusted to any basis which we judge to be fair and right. We have complete power over the flexibility of the financing of the scheme.
I should be trespassing unduly on the patience of the Committee if I completely developed an alternative concept of social security on an Amendment of this kind, but I can say that the basis of the change would rest upon two main considerations—first, a proportionate contribution by all and, secondly, a defining of the range of the contributions at the beginning without tampering with them subsequently, unless that were absolutely necessary.
In the Bill we are extending the range of graduated contributions before the first year of account of the graduated scheme. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) pointed out yesterday the difficulties of altering the basis of contracting out. Speaking personally, I believe that the whole question of contracting out needs to be reconsidered in the light of the new idea of universal social security. The extraordinary thing at the moment is that we allow contracting out for maximum graduated contributions at 7s. 1d. but still retain universal compulsory insurance for a much higher flat-rate contribution. That seems to be upside down.
Radical new thinking is needed, and the nation must be taken into our confidence so that people can redraw their concept of social security and be prepared to pay for it. In 1948 there were comments about the cost of social security. Not only did Beveridge say that social security was worth its money


price but the late Lord Waverley, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that it was something that we could not afford not to have.
It is wholly a question of the approach to these problems and the philosophy of the Government of the day. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has come to his new office too late in the lifetime of the present Government to be able to make any impact on the future thinking on National Insurance and social security in Britain. There are those who are ready to take his place with ideas which have been formed after long consideration of this matter, ideas which offer a new breakthrough and a new significant advance towards a social security which we could offer to the world as an example of radical thought in Britain.

Sir S. Summers: If the debate on the Amendment were to cover the width of ground on which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) started, it would take a long time and would inevitably include some shadow boxing, because only half an hour ago the hon. Gentleman made it clear that there was great urgency about the Bill and that he was willing to allow time for an Amendment which he had moved earlier to be considered by the Government, even if that meant dealing with the matter otherwise than through the Bill.
To give effect to the kind of ideas which the hon. Member was outlining could be done only by gravely delaying the Bill's passage. However, this may be a convenient opportunity to make some observation on the subject, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect changes as drastic as those which he was advocating to be incorporated in a Bill which everyone wants to pass quickly.
I dissent from the notion that there must be a constant movement in line between National Insurance and National Assistance benefits. The hon. Gentleman said that the basis upon which his figures rested was calculated by a reference to the National Assistance scale. It would follow from the logic of his argument that if one went up, the other should go up. I can see why he takes that view on subsistence grounds, but I would regret slavish rigidity in the system in the way

described, because it would preclude taxpayers' money being given particularly to the nationally assisted person, and which could not be so given if it meant spreading it right through to the people on National Insurance. It seems to suggest a rigidity which is undesirable for the future and which, I hope, the Minister will not seek to incorporate in any future changes that he may have in mind.
I have sympathy with the idea that we should move along the lines of graduated contributions and graduated benefits. I think that the drop, be it when unemployment or sickness arises, from wages as a significant figure is unreasonably great even if the drop from the lower figure is nothing like as great. The graduated ideas are designed to make the drop for the higher-paid workers somewhat less severe than it would be with only the flat-rate scheme.
One has sympathy with that, but when figures are quoted to show what a very small proportion in sickness or unemployment of the average wage the existing system provides, or indeed would be provided by the Amendment, I think that a false impression is created of a completely unrealistic situation because the figures relate only to a comparatively small section of the ordinary community, and omit large numbers whose wages are way below the average and would undoubtedly pull the average down.
The hon. Gentleman said he would concede that the gap is so large that even if what I am saying has some validity there is plenty of room to go up. Maybe, but I thought I detected a desire to get almost up to parity, in sickness or unemployment, the earning capacity of somebody normally at work. I think that we should delude ourselves and create a most absurd situation if we sought to eliminate a drop, and a real drop, because there must be one. Human nature being what it is, the whole concept of work would change if we sought so to protect people that irrespective of whether they were capable of getting a job or were sick, their capacity as breadwinners would be very much the same. That would be carrying things too far, and I do not think that the argument is improved by exaggerating it, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman did.
My only other point is to ask how far it is reasonable to push up these benefits if one has regard to the amount contributors will spend? If the idea is bandied around, particularly when a comparison is made with countries on the Continent, that we ought to be doing a great deal better than we are, and to that is added the notion that there is a real limit to what people are prepared to pay each week to give effect to the improvement in the parity figures with the Continent, the only way to do it is at the expense of taxation.
am not at this stage saying whether to use taxation in that way is good or bad, but what I am anxious to insist on is that if the argument is advanced that the taxpayer can find more money, it must be related to the other demands that are made on him for schools, hospitals, roads, or what we will, and so far the taxpayer's contribution to National Insurance has been related more to the scheme itself, to what people pay into it, than to counter-claims on the Treasury.
If the contributor is to be severely limited, and the benefits are to be greatly increased to such an extent that the taxpayer provides a much larger proportion of the bill from which these benefits are paid, it is inescapable that the claims of the other benefits for the community, be it hospitals, roads, and the like, must be taken into account and the answer judged accordingly, whereas now that comparison is not made, and barely needs to be made, because the taxpayer's contribution to the scheme is relatively small compared with that of the employer and the contributor.
6.45 p.m.
If it is going to be argued that that situation will not arise because we will take it out of the employers, different considerations arise, but the hon. Member for Sowerby is perhaps fortunate in that the order in which these Amendments appear preclude us from spending any appreciable time on contributions because they have been dealt with. There was no reason why he should not have tabled Amendments designed to give effect to his subsequent Amendments and thus not escape, as he has done, the real challenge of how these are to be paid for. I do not want to develop that at length.

Mr. Houghton: I have not the means of constructing an entirely new scale of contribution. It is just impossible.

Sir S. Summers: That is why I said that this was rather a shadow-boxing Amendment, because it has no real validity in terms of this debate. If we are going to lift our sights—and I do not complain about that—we must bring into focus the other claims on the taxpayers' money which, at the moment, in terms of National Insurance, play very little part in the consideration of these matters.

Mr. McKay: I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate. I disagree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). If one considers the financing of the National Insurance Scheme in general, one finds that the Exchequer pays only about one-sixth of the amount contributed by employers and employees.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on the lucid way in which he dealt with the various aspects of the problem. He showed quite clearly that we have passed the age when Beveridge, who was extremely clever, intelligent and an able administrator, laid the foundations of an insurance scheme. We have gone far beyond that stage. The world has moved away from the ideas prevailing when Beveridge put forward his proposals.
It appears to me that this scheme is upside down in many respects. When I consider this problem, I find that in reality people are keen on pressing our citizens into applying for National Assistance and having their private affairs examined before they receive a reasonable income, but there is this amazing fact which is relevant to the position today. Let us consider two men with similar houses and similar sized families. One is in receipt of National Assistance, the other is in receipt of National Insurance benefits. The situation is such that the man on National Assistance can get 44s. per week more than the man on National Insurance.
That is a very unsatisfactory position. I do not think we always realise it, nor do the Government always realise it. They appear to think that if the basic position is the same, the position of a man and his wife on National Assistance level is somewhat similar. They


have a feeling that there is a problem and on this occasion they are not raising National Assistance level so much as National Insurance level.
Is that principle a sound financial one? Is it a sound moral one? Both sides start largely level, but they are not even level because the very foundation of the financing of the two schemes makes a big balance in favour of the man on National Assistance. We are creating a scheme and a method whereby every encouragement is given to people to go on National Assistance and very little encouragement is given to men who are paying in the ordinary way through National Insurance.
Take the case of a man on£15 a week. Under the Bill he will be paying 13s. 4d. a week. When he becomes ill or unemployed he must ask for assistance if he is to be in the same position as the man who is not paying for insurance. Is it a satisfactory system when a man who has not worked for years, does not want to work and will get as much as he can out of the situation can legally demand monetary help equivalent to that received by the average worker?
Is it satisfactory that that can be done while, after the Bill is implemented, a tremendous number of men will be paying not 13s. 4d. but 7s. 6d. under the graduated scheme and about 8s. on the flat-rate every week? When such a man is ill or has an accident he will get in benefit 42s. a week less than the other man. The whole matter is very unsatisfactory.
I have taken the example of three men, all living in the same kind of domestic conditions. This is a fair comparison. A man who has£12 a week is paying the same rent, living in the same street and with all the same domestic difficulties as the other two. If we examine these cases fairly no one can say that the system is satisfactory. The man who is underinsured and becomes ill gets 67s. 6d. and 41s. for his wife. The married man on National Assistance gets 104s. 6d., but that is not his income, it is simply the basic payment. They both get the same basic payment, but one receives in rent, say, 25s. a week. In the first stages, the man who is married gets 25s. a week more than the man who is insured and is sick. He is in a worse position than the man

who perhaps for years has not paid into National Insurance.
Take the next stage where a man is married and has two children. He will get.51s. for the children under National Assistance under National Insurance he gets 40s. That is another difference of 11s. between two men who may be living in absolutely the same circumstances. The insured man with three children gets 169s. and the man on National Assistance gets 183s. 6d. plus, perhaps, his rent.
The final difference is that the insured man who is sick and who has three children gets 169s. and the other has 183s. 6d. because the allowance for children under National Assistance is much greater than that under National Insurance. As the number of children in the family grows, the difference becomes greater between National Insurance benefit and National Assistance.
In my examples I have taken families in similar circumstances, in similar houses and in similar local conditions. An insured man with three children receives 169s. A man on National Assistance receives 183s. 6d., plus a rent allowance of 25s. The anomalous position thus arises that the man who has been paying for years, perhaps at the rate of 15s. or more, receives 44s. a week less than the man who perhaps has not worked for a long time.
7.0 p.m.
Do we believe that this is a satisfactory state of affairs? It must be admitted that this is a very difficult problem, but a change should be made if the benefits under National Insurance are to be improved to the extent to which most of us want to see them improved. It cannot be a good principle that a man who has paid National Insurance contributions for years, whilst he has been working, should receive about£2 a week less when he needs help than a man on National Assistance.
It is a bad principle. However, it seems to be generally accepted at the moment that the principle should be a permanent one. We seem to be approaching the position that, regardless of the fact that ordinary citizens will be liable to pay£1 a week in insurance contributions, other people who have not perhaps subscribed for years receive greater benefits.
Under what principle can it be argued that National Assistance benefits must of


necessity be as great as—in fact greater than—National Insurance benefits? The position is becoming fantastic when people in receipt of National Assistance receive£3 a week more than people receiving National Insurance benefits.
The various political parties should get together on this point and reach combined agreement. We are anxious to ensure that people who are unable to work shall be kept alive in a satisfactory condition, but there must be a limit. The limit is surely reached when men who are not working get such a sum that they are better off perhaps than working men. Most people, regardless of political view, want a National Insurance system which will give people an income at least equal in economic worth to that which men on National Assistance get. We want men on National Assistance to get as much as possible within reason, but we do not want the multitude of men in the country who pay almost£1 a week to find when they suffer adversity that men who have not been paying anything can receive£2 a week more than they, unless they, too, apply for National Assistance.
There is a limit beyond which we should not pass. However, I do not believe that we shall ever modify the differentiation between National Assistance and National Insurance, because it is a political weapon which is used at General Elections. I do not know that the principle is supported by logic or common sense, but, whatever benefit the man on National Insurance receives when he is in adversity, from whatever cause and no matter what contribution he pays, the National Assistance people create and argue that National Assistance benefits must rise at the same speed and the same height merely because they are in difficulties.

Mr. George Thomas: So they ought to.

Mr. McKay: That is where my hon. Friend takes a different view from me. To me it is wrong that there should be this weighting against the man on National Insurance who pays so much in contribution. The time has arrived when National Insurance benefits should at least equal National Assistance benefits.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said that he admired the con-

structive speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). So did I, but it should be remembered that in any discussion on new pension rates it is legitimate for any Opposition to press for more. It is politically expedient that they should.
I admit that the series of Amendments under discussion have made me somewhat depressed. The most perceptive critics of the present National Insurance and pension arrangements are agreed that they are too non-selective in character. We are providing vast sums of money, but it is very doubtful whether enough relief is yet given.
Twelve years ago we were paying£275 million in National Insurance benefits. When the Bill is passed that sum will rise to more than£900 million—yet there will be still a substantial amount of suffering. It would be wrong for any hon. Member not to be grateful to the Government for the substantial benefits that they are bringing forward in the Bill, but I join with hon. Members who have criticised them for introducing yet another Measure which advances stiff further the flat-rate increase in benefits.
I would have preferred to have seen the general increases concentrated in a number of special areas. For example, the hon. Member for Sowerby said that our ideas on this topic had changed in recent years. Indeed, our whole approach to the idea of growing old has changed with the advance of medical science and improved standards. People are retaining their youth and vigour to a greater age than was common a mere twenty years ago.
The principle is generally agreed that need increases with age. No longer at, say, 65, but rather at 75 or 80, does it become increasingly difficult for people to meet the challenges of everyday life and, it would seem, more aid should be channelled to those people.
I would have liked to have seen in the Bill a concentration on those who are old so that retirement pensioners aged 70 to 80 could have benefited to a greater extent. But no; we are sticking to the flat rate all round. It is understandable that the Government should do this; regrettable, but understandable. Once a system is established it takes a great deal to shake the Ministry out of the normal course of events. Its is regrettable


to see the Opposition—who are not troubled with bureaucratic responsibilities—when faced with the whole question of increase in rates, merely look around and say, "We want more for everyone" instead of taking a more selective approach.
This series of Amendments makes me think that if we are to get improvements in the future they will have to come from pressure from my hon. Friends and not from hon. Members opposite.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) always makes a thoughtful speech and I listened to his remarks with growing interest, waiting patiently for some of his ideas about the future of the National Insurance Scheme. He skirted around the question, decided that our ideas were not up to his standard and promised us that, in some magic way and at some distant time, those ideas will come from his hon. Friends. Maybe, some day.
I believe that already there is a ferment of thinking in the country about the National Insurance Scheme. The very fact that the Bill must be amended in this way is an indication that the Government have grown flabby, are tired in their thinking and are incapable of any new ideas, particularly in relation to the National Insurance Scheme. They merely float on along the lines we started after the war without realising that we have entered a new era.
The hon. Member for Beckenham was right when he said that there is a new social attitude towards the needs of the under-privileged in our community; those unfortunate people who are either unemployed or who, in old age, have not enough resources to live in comfort. I thought that the hon. Baronet the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) adopted a typical Conservative attitude on this question, for he seemed to indicate that if we provided too much social security people would cease to work.

Sir S. Summers: Sir S. Summers rose—

Mr. Thomas: I will give way.

Sir S. Summers: I must protest at the gross misrepresentation on the part of the hon. Member of what I said. I

merely said that if the benefits for people who were out of work or sick were at the same level as were their earnings, serious and disastrous results would follow.

Mr. Thomas: I had no intention of doing the hon. Member an injustice. I knew that he was sitting in his place and would contradict me if I misrepresented him. The general idea of what he said is that if we provide too much social security people will not work. That is what the hon. Member said.

Sir S. Summers: Does the hon. Member intend to provide too much social security?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly, too much security will not be provided by hon. Members opposite. This Measure is an indication of what hon. Members opposite believe to be generosity in our society, for they are always boasting of how well off people are. The hon. Member forgets that there are a great many people who are doing very well as a result of the labours of the general body of workers—people who never dirty their hands or do a day's work and who are not paying the contributions they should for the maintenance of the unfortunate people whom we are discussing tonight.
That is why I want to see the basis of contributions altered. I want to see more come from taxation. I want to see these people who are dodging paying their proper contribution to the Welfare State made to pay it. There is only one way to get them to fulfil their social obligation, and that is by the Chancellor of the Exchequer helping the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to squeeze it out of them. They will never contribute in any other way.
The Government have muffed their chances. Last Friday afternoon, in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, I attended a meeting of the Cardiff Area Council of Old-Age Pensioners. There are 32 branches in the city, comprising 5,000 members. It is my privilege to be their president—I do not boast, I merely state a fact. What did I find? Of course, it is appreciated that there has been an increase, or the promise of an increase. They are certainly a little puzzled about the date, we all are, but they ask, "Why do the Government still work on the principle that we all have other means on which to live? The retirement pension is not enough for retired people."
It is humiliating when people have worked for forty years, and are unable to save for their old age, that they must face a means test. It is a myth that the majority of our working people can afford to keep themselves, or, indeed, subsidise their old-age pension to any extent in retirement. They just cannot.
The majority of our working people live from hand to mouth. They absorb their wages—they need them to live on. How dare we tell them, at the end of their working days, "You must now go through this humiliating business of the means test," making them answer the most personal questions that are an affront to the dignity of old people? I think that Parliament has missed its chance in not originally putting in the figures now proposed by this Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) for whom I have a very great respect and affection, if I may say so, was anxious about the disparity between working people who fall sick and those who have been for years on the Assistance Board, who are getting more. I would remind the Committee that people who have for years been on National Assistance are in a bad way. They are at the end of their tether. We all hold our "surgeries" and meet these people. I know of no more humiliating experience when, in modern Britain, people have to ask me if I can try to get the Assistance Board to provide them with some trousers or some underclothes. That is the experience of my hon. Friends, as it is mine. We have to write letters to the Board about the people concerned. This is the picture of the submerged Britain against which we have been closing our eyes.
I feel deeply when anyone says that folk who have been on National Assistance, for years, and have never contributed, are well off. He does not know their circumstances. No one can describe them as being well off. The Assistance Board leaves nobody well off—nobody. It is quite right, of course, that those who pay ought not to fall below. The trouble is not that the Assistance scales are too high—and I know that my hon. Friend did not mean that they were—but that the benefits are too low. Here we have a monopoly insurance scheme, and the benefits are far more unequal than they ought to be.
Our idea of a new deal for the unemployed, the sick and the old is obviously very different from that of hon. Members opposite. I am not afraid to face the electorate in my division and say that there must be more from taxation to pay for increased benefits for the old folk, because when we are taxed we pay according to our ability. The richer people are, the more they pay—and so they should. They still have plenty left to live on. We should not be putting such a burden on those millions of people who are earning less than£10 a week. They are carrying a burden that belongs to the strong, which is another reason why I like this Amendment.
I should like to see a new and more humane approach made to the National Insurance Scheme. These benefits are inadequate, and should be increased.

Mr. McKay: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will not misconstrue what I said. My point is that the basic scale of all our people ought to be raised far above its present level. The pensioners would get it just as would the National Assistance people, but the time may come when we can go beyond that and see to the betterment of the insured people.

Dr. Horace King: I should first like to follow up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). My hon. Friend devotes a great deal of his life to examining the problems of National Insurance, but in his search for a really adequate National Insurance benefit he pushes some of his criticisms too far. None of us, I think, shares his view of the National Assistance Board to whose work so many of us pay tribute, which will remain for quite a long time yet. Indeed, it is probable that it will have to remain even if we ever succeed in creating a perfect National Insurance scale, in order to provide a net for the exceptional cases.
I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to do so, but when he differentiated between the short-term and the long-term unemployed he referred to some of the long-term unemployed as being people who might not want to work. I must say for the record that every National Insurance Report for the last few years has shown quite clearly that the number


of malingerers in our society is quite infinitesimal. The records show that the long-term unemployed people do not want National Assistance—they want work. Unemployment is a bitter hardship; long-term unemployment is a tragedy.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who has left us for a moment, said that he was worried about the growth of what might be called nonselective National Insurance, but what ought to worry him, as it worries us, about those whose cause we are now pleading is that the people who are now in the greatest need will get less out of the combined benefits of the National Insurance and National Assistance increases than anyone else in the whole country.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers)—

Mrs. Slater: He is not a baronet yet.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is difficult to keep track, is it not?

Dr. King: —indulged in what I regard as the favourite Tory tactic of playing down the Opposition, suggesting that our indignation is synthetic, that these are academic debates and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) indulges in shadow boxing. No hon. Member on either side who knows the capable and sincere work done by my hon. Friend would charge him with shadow boxing. Indeed, it is within the recollection of the Committee that if he thinks a thing is wrong he will unite with the Treasury Bench against his own back benchers, as I remember to my own cost.
In these debates we are trying to win concessions, and if the hon. Baronet's argument means anything it means that as the Government have a majority there is no point in the Opposition putting down Amendments they believe to be right, and that Parliament might as well pack up. We believe, on the other hand, that today's debate is part of a battle that we began a long time ago to secure a socially just treatment of all our citizens. And most of the arguments which the hon. Member for Aylesbury used in his speech were arguments which were used against the first old-age pensions when Lloyd George introduced them.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member is right on one point. The basic question is whether the people of Britain are prepared to pay for what we believe is socially just and right. We on this side of the Committee believe that they are prepared to pay if the method of payment is itself socially just and right, but that involves a question I cannot go into on these Amendments.
On all these Amendments we are discussing just how poor the poor can be, and what is the basic level below which no British citizen should fall. I want to say a few words on behalf of the old people. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that a remarkable feature of the letters they have received from old-age pensioners, individually and collectively, in the last week is that they have been unanimous. They make two points, that the basic pension should be£4 a week, and this is one of our Amendments, and the other that the increases should have been made earlier and, since they have not been made earlier, they should be made retrospective. The letters are polite and dignified. They appreciate what the Government are doing, but they do not beg for more. There is a tone in the letters of a rightful pride and a rightful demand on the part of old people for their share of the nation's increased prosperity.
The old folk about whom I am worried most are those who are living just on their pension plus National Assistance. Unless our Amendments are accepted, the Bill, roughly speaking, will ask the old-age pensioners, man and wife, if they have no private means, to live on 109s. a week plus rent. Even that will be cut back a little because of the difference between the proposed increase of basic pensions and the proposed increase of National Assistance scale plus concessionary allowances which the National Assistance Board allows to 150,000 of the 200,000 of the worst cases. But this group which needs it most will not even receive the full benefit of the 10s. a week increase proposed in this Bill.
If our Amendments were accepted the old-age pensioner and his wife would receive 125s. a week plus rent and plus the concessionary bits which National Assistance gives. Old folk need warmth


much more than anybody else, I do not know how the old folks of Britain have survived this winter.

Mrs. Slater: Many have not.

Dr. King: If for a moment we drop the battle between the two sides of the Committee about the amount of the pension, it can be said that it is the steadily improving provision which we have made since the war for old folk that has prevented many of them from dying this winter. Many would have died if we had not built up the Welfare State in the last fifteen years.
I have watched them trudging through the snow to their Darby and Joan Clubs, going there for the warmth. One couple have written to me to say that they must have 2 cwt. of coal a week and they need electric light and gas for cooking. They write—and I have no reason to doubt them—that the total cost of these is 28s. a week, and that is in an ordinary winter, not this winter. There is no hon. Member who has provided himself with heat, light and cooking during this bitter winter on 28s a week. If this is the cost to these old people and they have no private income they will be left with£4 a week under the new scale to buy what food they need, including food at enhanced prices because of the winter, and their clothing and small comforts.
I have never forgotten an old-age pensioner who came to my surgery some years ago. He was worried about his gas meter and he produced a little note book, in which every single penny that he had put in the gas meter was carefully recorded. We are dealing with people to whom pennies and shillings really matter. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committe help old folk individually. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) told us of the wonderful work done in the crisis by Lady Morrison and of the provision of coal for hundreds of old folk through voluntary gifts.
Fine voluntary work is done in every community, and I hope it grows. There are the meals-on-wheels, the splendid work of the churches in providing Darby and Joan clubs, and the Christmas gifts which the Rotary and other clubs provide for the old folk. The Welfare State does not mean the abolition of charity. We do not ask people to cease

making their neighbour-loving gifts. But these gifts and the lovely deeds done at Christmas tend to obscure the fundamental issue, because charity is indiscriminate and many people do not benefit.
I had this brought strikingly home to me recently. A Southampton newspaper, one of the best local newspapers in the country, spoke about the fine work done for the old folk and said that none in Southampton had been forgotten. I received a letter of protest which I will read to the Committee to show the kind of people for whom we are pleading through these Amendments. It reads:
I am the treasurer of the Golden Age club, and we are the forgotten few. The Stoneham Club and the Stoneham Youth Club were the only ones to send little gifts of a small box of chocolate biscuits…Fords kindly allow us the use of their sports room which enables us to keep together. We support ourselves by our annual subscription of 4s. We have a rotary system in which each member gives a draw every week. With this money we make gifts for our sick members and help towards our summer outing.
If the young people were as generous to there fellow young people as the old people are to their fellow old people this would be a much better country. The club treasurer adds:
Our oldest member is 90 and the youngest is in her seventies.
These are typical of the people whom we want to help.
They are the kind of people who have made Britain. They are proud, cheerful and self-reliant. What they want is not charity, however loving, or gifts in the freeze-up but an adequate reward at the end of their lives. It is on their behalf that the honorary secretary of all old-age pensions associations in South Hampshire writes:
We welcome the pension increase, but we must protest that it is too small. Our demand is for an immediate increase to£4. We protest too at the long wait. If, as you say, it is impossible to do the job any sooner, will you make the increase as soon as you can, in fact from 23rd January?…We are not satisfied with the 10s. increase. We want not less than£1 and we want it now at once.
Reference has been made from the benches opposite to the youthfulness of old people. This letter is a youthful and vigorous demand on behalf of the old folk of the country and I am happy, through the Committee, to present it to the Minister. The old folk had a raw deal this winter. I hope that we can improve


the provisions that we are making in the Bill by acceptance of the Amendment for the old folk.

Mr. W. Hamilton: I have always thought in these debates that the House of Commons should be seething with indignation at the way the old people are treated by us over the years. From the other side of the Committee we have had two typical speeches, the contents of which could have been forecast before the two hon. Members spoke. We had the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), both representing comfortable, respectable constituencies.
I used to live in Beckenham. I know the kind of people who live there. I never voted for the hon. Member who represents Beckenham. If there had been a pair of old boots on the platform with a Labour label on them, I would have voted for them rather than for the hon. Member. He made the kind of speech that makes me want to be sick. He described our proposal as a shady, political manœuvre. Nobody can ever accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) of indulging in that kind of tactic. If there is anybody who adopts a more responsible and more informative attitude to this kind of problem, I do not know of him.
My hon. Friend is abundantly honest in facing these issues and the implications of what he is arguing. He never shirked that this afternoon. He said, frankly and openly, that had it not been for the way in which the Bill is presented he would have accepted the need for increased contributions to finance the increased allowances for which we are arguing.
We think that the scheme that the Minister and his Government are trying to operate is not the best possible. We have a much better one. The Government have simply sought to make a tawdry copy of the scheme that we on this side produced years ago. Having chastised and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby of that kind of tactic, the hon. Member for Beckenham went on to argue that we should channel the increases only to those between 70 and 80 years of age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said, however, that is selective. It is selective in

the sense of penalising the worst-off section of the community, those on National Assistance. They would get less than all the others who benefited under the scheme.
7.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury was on another tack. He argued that it was easy for an Opposition to ask for more; that was in the nature of politics, a sordid auction for votes. One side says one thing, the other says something else, each going one better. It is not like that at all. The hon. Member went on to say that there were other claims upon the national wealth, such as health and education. All the educational or health enthusiasts want more for their various services, and where is it all to come from? That argument was never produced when the Prime Minister suggested that we would get half a dozen Polaris submarines at£40 million apiece. There was no suggestion then that we must get our priorities right. We do not get that kind of speech from hon. Members opposite until we debate old-age people and people on National Assistance and National Insurance benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen wondered how the old people had survived this winter. The brutal fact is that many of them have not. I want to get this on the record. I have in my hand today's issue of the Glasgow Daily Record, and this is what it says:
Hundreds of Scotland's old folk are dying in the cold—too poor to buy the food and warmth to keep thorn alive. They are fighting a lonely battle…and facing a frightening dilemma. For they must choose whether they will spend their few shillings on food OR on coal.
They can buy coal…and starve. They can buy food…and freeze, prey to the killers, bronchitis, pneumonia, heart trouble and rheumatism that come with the cold. But they cannot buy coal AND food. Necessity is out of their reach; comfort beyond their dreams.
Since December 1st, in Edinburgh alone, 727 pensioners have died.
That is 10 every day for the last 2½months, and these people are on our consciences. I do not know how many of those have died because of the inadequacy of their income, but a good proportion of them must have done so. We all know cases in our constituencies and from our experience where old people are having to choose between coal


and food. They get one or the other, but they cannot get both.
The article continues with the quotation that
Everybody must do something. We must rid ourselves of this scandal of old people who die because they can't afford warmth and food. And if we can't help, we must bring their names to the attention of people who can.
A Scottish spokesman for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief is reported as saying:
We've donated£1,000 for blankets, coal and food to the Salvation a Army to help among the old.
What an assessment of our modern civilisation in 1963 that an organisation which seeks to prevent hunger in distant parts of the world has to divert resources to help our own old people because we have never yet had a Government that would educate the people to the need for providing much more for the old than any Government have ever done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, I say frankly that there is an educative process to be carried out. We have to say brutally and frankly to our people that if the old folk have to get infinitely better treatment than they have now, we, the younger generation, must pay, and we must pay either by contributions in the scheme or by taxation, or both.
There is another answer. One of the difficulties in which the Government have landed themselves is that they have not been increasing the national wealth that would make this possible. If we had had the 4 per cent. increase in national income per year over the last ten years that N.E.D.C. has announced, we would have had no trouble. But we are trying to alter the shares of a cake that remains static in size. That is why these debates are rather artificial. We are trying to isolate them from the context of the whole national economy.
Nevertheless, let us assume that we get the 4 per cent. increase per year, as I hope we will—but it will not be under this Government. They do not have a clue about anything. Wherever one looks, their policies are in a shambles. If, however, we get the 4 per cent. a year, we can agree that our first two priorities must be the young and the old. Those are the first two. If we want to take an increased proportion of the national cake

for them, one way is to take it out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would prefer that. If I had my way, I would scrap the whole sham of an insurance system. It is not an insurance system. I do not know why we call it insurance.
The simplest way would be to finance the whole lot out of general taxation, but I know that I tread on a lot of corns when I argue that. However, it has the merit, at least, that everybody would pay according to his ability to pay. It seems to me that that would be the fairest way to ensure that everyone played his part and shared the burden of this highly civilised activity. This Government do not want to educate the people of this country to the need for that kind of activity. We shall have to wait for another Government to do it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I think that it might be convenient if I intervened at this stage. We have had quite a considerable debate already and a great many people have expressed different views.

Mr. James Dempsey: Not very many.

Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is not in his place, but I have no doubt that he will be here soon.

Mr. William Ross: He has been here all the time.

Mr. Macpherson: I know that. Notwithstanding his absence at the moment, I feel that I should start by following up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Member for Sowerby told us how he reached the figures in his Amendment. He asked me how I reached mine. What we have before us in the debate are two rival sets of proposals. The picture which the hon. Gentleman drew of the way I reached my figures did not augur very well for what would happen if he were running this part of the country's affairs and did what he wanted to do. I ask the Committee to consider the two sets of proposals in perspective.
The hon. Gentleman's proposals range, for the main rates, from about a 29 per cent. increase for a wife to a 39 per cent. increase on the single benefit as it is at


present. Our increases range from 17 per cent. to 19 per cent. for the various benefits. There are one or two which lie outside, but that is the main range.
The Committee will want to know what the cost of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be. It knows what the cost of ours is. His proposals would cost£420 million on National insurance in the first full year, which is£220 million more than the cost of ours. That is not taking into account any consequential costs there would be for other benefits such as Industrial Injuries insurance and war pensions, which may be a matter of another£25 million to£30 million. If this were done entirely on the flat-rate contributions it would represent an increase of 1s. 8d. a side. The hon. Gentleman implied that, from his point of view, and, he thought, perhaps from mine, we had reached the limit of increasing flat-rate contributions.
I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has now returned to his place. I was just dealing with the points which he made and I was giving the cost of his proposals as, roughly,£420 million on National Insurance in the first full year, plus the consequential costs. I had just said that the cost would be about 1s. 8d. a side, although I appreciated that it was the hon. Gentleman's view that we had reached the limit of increasing flat-rate contributions. In addition to the 1s. 8d. a side, there would be a cost involved of£45 million to the Exchequer.
This liability would go on increasing. On pensions alone, our proposals will involve expenditure rising from£1,000 million in 1964–65 to£1,429 million 17 years later. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would cost proportionately more, rising all the time.
Someone has got to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) made a very cogent speech in which he said, as I understood it, that the more one lays the burden on the Exchequer the more does one bring into the area of conflict the amounts which we are prepared to pay out of the Exchequer for benefits of this description as against other social charges. One of the great advantages of having a scheme of this sort, with fairly well determined proportions of charges in a known

ratio, is that we know where we stand in advance.
The hon. Gentleman said that, by and large, his figure was based on the existing National Assistance scale for the single householder, plus the average rent. We are bound to ask then what we should do about the National Assistance rent allowance. We can raise National Assistance rates, perhaps by the same amount, perhaps not; but, if we were to raise them by the same amount, this would then cost a further£35 million on National Assistance, and, of course, in addition to that, the higher scales would bring in more applicants, and this would enhance the cost.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hear, hear. That is what we want.

Mr. Macpherson: If we did not raise National Assistance, the result would be—I think that it appeared from the debate last November that this was one of the results desired by the Opposition—a massive transfer of those on National Assistance to the Insurance scheme. The effect would be that about 500,000 of those now receiving National Assistance supplements would cease to do so. If we did it in this way, basing ourselves on the National Assistance single householder rate plus the rent, we should then be paying the rent of many people who could afford to pay it for themselves. We should be providing more rent than they needed for some and less for others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I mean less than they need to pay their rent for some and more than they need for others. Roughly half the people then who received National Assistance supplements would, presumably, still have to rely on National Assistance.
All this really comes from the dislike, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), expressed, of making an application to the National Assistance Board. But the difficulty of providing a subsistence rate is illustrated by this approach. Subsistence must, of course, include rent, but a subsistence rate which is based on a fixed National Assistance allowance plus a fixed amount for rent is bound to founder on the fact that rents vary widely.
There will always be people who are unable to provide for their present, let alone their future—and some of us are


not even able to provide for our past. Ought we to call on our citizens to pay enough to enable everyone to get sufficient in benefits to ensure that no one should have to apply to the National Assistance Board provided, at least, that he or she had paid what was due to the National Insurance Fund?
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) suggested a more selective approach. That, at least, is the direct opposite of the approach suggested by the Opposition.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) recognised that this was so, but said that our proposals mean that the people in greatest need will get less. I do not know what he meant by that. As a result of the National Assistance increases, people in the greatest need will get more. If he is saying that they will not get as much as the full increase in the National Insurance benefits, that is because they are on National Assistance. This is bound to be the case wherever an intermediate increase of National Assistance rates is made which then has to be taken into account when we bring in a subsequent National Assistance increase in line with a National Insurance one.

Dr. King: The simple fact is that the poorest people will get a 10s. a week increase in their old-age pension, but because the National Assistance rates have gone up not only by 10s. but by 6s., whereas other people in the country will get the 10s. a week increase, their net increase will be 6s.

Mr. Macpherson: That is so. We are agreed about that. But to imply that they will get less as a result of these proposals is quite untrue.
The hon. Member for Sowerby asked how we arrive at our figures. I do not think that this can be better expressed than by quoting the words of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he said about making proposals of this kind:
The factors which have to be borne in mind in proposing legislation for the improvement of National Insurance benefits include changes in the cost of living, the standards enjoyed by other sections of the population, what level of contributions would be reasonable and the state and prospects of the national economy.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 18.]

It boils down to a question of judgment, and the figures in the Bill represent our judgment in the light of these considerations.
We have considered the pledges which we have given. We have pledged ourselves to ensure that pensioners continue to share in the good things which a steadily expanding economy will bring, and these increases reflect that policy. We can claim that we have consistently pursued a policy of raising benefits in real value as standards of living rise. We have had regard to the cost of these increases in the benefits, and to their impact on contributors, on the taxpayer and on the economy as a whole.
What has been the result? Under our proposals, the pension is now worth 50 per cent. more in real value than in October, 1951, when we took over. This has been a consistent policy of advance. Sickness and unemployment benefits are worth over 80 per cent. more in real value than in October, 1951. But, some may say, is this enough as a proportion of the national income?
In 1951, the proportion which National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits bore to the gross national product was 3·1 per cent. As a result of these increases, the proportion, on the 1961 figure, would be 41·8 per cent. Our proposals, as I say, represent an increase of between 17 and 19 per cent. on the existing rates compared with an increase of 9·1 per cent. in earnings over two years and an increase of 6·1 per cent. in retail prices since the last increase came into force. In those circumstances, I ask the Committee to say whether or not our judgment is right.

Mr. Dempsey: I join the chorus of support for this Amendment. I was intrigued by the remarks of the Minister about making a judgment on these increases. I should like the retirement pensioners to say whether they are much better off to the extent quoted by the Minister than they were in 1951. The pensioners should be the judges of that, not the Minister.
The Minister's judgment is similar to the judgments that we have had recently in international affairs. Our deterrent policy has collapsed in ruins. The right hon. Gentleman's judgment is a manifestation of the judgment that we had in the recent European debacle. The


domestic economic situation is another example of the Government's muddling judgment. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has been consistent in following the innocuous examples of his right hon. Friends.
Anyone who considers the increases proposed must surely know that they are inadequate to provide living standards for the categories of people who are entirely dependent on State benefits. These categories cover the pensioners, widows, those in receipt of the guardian's allowance, the unemployed, and so on. A great deal has been said about benefits for certain categories of widows, in which I have participated, but I should like tonight to refer first to the pensioners.
I spent the Christmas Recess mainly attending pensioners' meetings, functions and little socials. I have seen them toddling for miles through snow and bitter frost into the heart of a large town in my constituency in order to collect a little envelope containing 5s. at the annual Christmas party. They were reduced to braving the stormy elements of the Scottish climate mainly in order to collect 5s. extra to spend on their Christmas dinner, although they had also entertainment. This is the plight of pensioners, not the fantasy painted by the Minister a few moments ago.
We should face this situation objectively. In my view, the Minister is trying to face it philanthropically. We are dealing with the section of the community which not only suffers the most but which has suffered the longest. It is the duty of those associated with the pensioners and who have their interests at heart to speak up for them on an occasion such as this.
There is not the slightest doubt that pensioners are living at starvation level. My mother, like many others, is a pensioner. She is having to buy three bags of coal a week during this cold weather. The average price of a bag is 10s. 4d. That means that 31s. of her weekly pension is spent on coal. Gas has increased in price. She has to keep the gas going to help keep the kitchen warm. The price of electricity has increased. There is also a need for additional foodstuffs, fats and nutritives to try to carry these old people over this wintry season.
The Minister would be well advised to look at the reply which his predecessor gave to a Question which I asked a year ago about how many pensioners died between January and March, 1962. If he does that he will get the shock of his life. That is the period in the year which has the most telling effect on aged people. Yet the right hon. Gentleman offers 1½million of them a miserable 6s. a week—less than 1s. a day. If he thinks that that is sufficient to give pensioners a reasonable standard of living, then he is completely divorced from the realities of the situation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the rates were raised by 4s. before the winter, so that that increase, together with this 6s. increase, brings the total increase up to the increase in National Insurance benefits.

Mr. Dempsey: I have pointed out to the Minister that the old folks with whom I associate have had to buy extra bags of coal. My mother is one of them and she has been buying two extra bags of coal a week at 20s. 8d.

Mrs. Alice Cullen (Glasgow, Gorbals): Surely she cannot afford it. My hon. Friend must be buying it for her.

Mr. Dempsey: Well, I am too modest to comment.
How does the Minister expect 4s. to augment realistically the income of these poor old souls? There is nothing more saddening, humiliating and nauseating to me than to see advertisements in the local Press asking for clothes, shoes or perhaps an old wireless to give comfort to the old folk during their hours of loneliness; and, incidentally, the wireless is very often their only companion. That is the sort of standard on which pensioners are existing in this wintry weather.
I wish to impress on the Minister the necessity to take a realistic view of this problem. If he did so, he would be apologising for the miserable increases which he proposes to give pensioners. When examining the plight of these people we should bear in mind the present day cost of living. The Minister has been making great play with the value of the pension today compared with 1951. But he did not mention that food subsidies had been abolished during that period. Milk and bread subsidies have been


abolished, and incidentally, some bakers have been forced out of existence by the Government's financial policy. He has failed to mention the appreciable increase in the price of milk, which is a tonic for the old folks. They delight to have milk puddings, sometimes twice a day, but those puddings require milk and that is a very costly item. If the Minister cares to add up these costs and others such as clothes and footwear he will discover that the cost of living for old folks is far beyond the rates of pension which he advocates.
A Scottish Old Folks Welfare Committee has been examining living conditions in Scotland, and among the many conclusions that this committee has reached is the following:
It has now been acknowledged that the retirement pension of itself does not and will not ensure a reasonable and proper standard of life for retired persons.
That conclusion was reached by a committee appointed not by the Labour Party in Scotland, a committee consisting of representatives of all aspects of public life, such as for example the W.V.S., the Red Cross, social organisations and community centre representatives. That is their impartial judgment on the standard of pensions in this country, and I would prefer to be guided by such people who give so nobly of their time voluntarily to promote the interests of old folks and who have arrived at such very compelling conclusions.
Having said that, I am always wondering when we shall arrive at the stage of planning pensions so that we can gradually eliminate the need for National Assistance. National Assistance today plays an indispensable part in the lives of 1½million pensioners. That is admitted. Indeed, I believe that their officers accomplish a very difficult task. My criticism is not of the Minister's officers. Indeed, the area officer with whom I am in contact in Coatbridge and Airdrie is one of the finest and most outstanding officers that we have. He is understanding, sympathetic and willing to co-operate to the best of his ability in helping those in need. But naturally he and his staff can only do so within the framework of the regulations. That is why, until we reach the stage when pensions will be adequate to provide a decent living standard for these people, National

Assistance will continue to be important as a supplement.
8.15 p.m.
It is regrettable that once more I have to say—and, incidentally, this is the third time in the past few years—that the National Assistance scale increases do not correspond with pension increases, as a result of which 1½million pensioners will not receive the full increase to which they are entitled. I feel that I should make that point because it is a bone of contention among the pensioners in my constituency.
I hope that so long as National Assistance continues, the Minister will get back to the original arrangement which was in force for many years throughout the 1940s and early 1950s whereby increases in National Assistance corresponded to increases in pensions, thus avoiding irritable anomalies.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention that there should be increases in National Assistance similar to those proposed in the Amendment?

Mr. Dempsey: Speaking for myself, I should like the Minister to revert to the original practice which was adopted for many years in the 1940s and early 1950s, by which increases were awarded at a rate consistent with each other, so that we do not have the anomaly of pensioners who receive National Assistance getting less than the increase enjoyed by other pensioners. In this respect, I am merely speaking for myself, but I have been very consistent on this point.
As a member of a local authority, I took a deputation to meet the Minister's predecessor to express to him the importance of pursuing that principle. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when I return to my constituency I shall be hammered from all angles because many pensioners will not be receiving the full increase. I must make that point very cogently on behalf of those whom I represent, so that they can hammer the Government instead.
I now want to mention briefly—because others are anxious to speak—this question of unemployment benefits. I want to make it unquestionably clear to the Minister that it is jobs that I want, and it is jobs that the people in my constituency want. When he was


Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade he regularly heard me pleading for these jobs. In my constituency no less than 9·5 per cent. of the insured population is unemployed owing to the failure of the Government to provide those jobs, and, in view of that failure, for which the Government must accept responsibility, the Government have a duty to pay these people decent rates of benefit. I support the Amendment in this respect.
I now wish to mention one of the most heartburning problems of all—juvenile unemployment. In Lanarkshire scores of young boys and girls have been paid off recently owing to a trade recession, with little hope of finding other employment because there is a waiting list of school leavers. There are growing youths who require clothes and footwear regularly, whose style changes very often—boys and girls who need an adequate standard of benefit until such time as jobs are made available. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are inadequate to meet that demand. Therefore, I support the Amendment in this respect. The benefits should be increased as proposed in this Amendment, so that at this time, when so many are unemployed, they can have a fairly reasonable standard of living.
I am convinced that the Minister has not really appreciated the magnitude of this problem. It is probably because he is fortunate; he does not represent an industrial area where there is a very large number of people unemployed of whom a substantial proportion are boys and girls aged between 16 and 21. If he were conscious of the demands of those young people he would advocate proper proposals for scales of benefit.
The scales indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) are much more reasonable than those proposed by the Minister and it is for that reason that I support the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division. The old folk and the others are dependent on a stand being made on an issue such as this to ensure that their plight is drawn to the attention of the Government and the Government galvanised into action and into giving much better rates of pension and unemployment benefit and so on. The rates proposed by my hon. Friend are

much more acceptable and I will certainly support the Amendment, by voting for it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Houghton: I rise to do exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has asked, that is, to press this Amendment to a Division, if the Committee feels that we can now do so. We have had a long debate, the second debate only of the day, and we have a very long way to go, and there are other matters to which we want to give equal attention. Our next debate, for example, is on widows' benefits, which we regard as of the highest importance.
I apologise to the Minister for being absent for a moment or two at the beginning of his speech. It was my first absence from the Chamber since half-past three. I am obliged to him for repeating for my benefit one or two of the things that he had said earlier.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned not only the level of the benefits proposed in the Amendment, but the cost. He did not, however, say that this level of benefits proposed in the Amendment was in his opinion too high. When he referred to the cost he was really confirming the figure I had already quoted, having made reference to the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary earlier. The right hon. Gentleman did not say the cost would be too much. He merely said what the cost would be, and left it rather open as to whether it was one which the community could bear.
I wonder whether he has studied the recent statement comparing social security costs in the countries of the European Economic Community and this country. I have just picked up a little broadsheet on Britain and Europe and the social security of the Six, and I see here that on the last available figures, in 1957, the lowest percentage of national income going to social security in all the Six in the European Economic Community was 12·1 per cent. In Western Germany, it was nearly 21 per cent.
Those are the countries which we were so anxious to join because of their vigorous economy, their enterprise, their exports, their labour costs, their dynamic economies—all such that we wished


to be associated with them. Every one of them appears to send a larger proportion of its national income on social security than Britain.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will complete the picture by pointing out that hourly wages in this country were higher than in any of the other countries in Europe at the same date?

Mr. Houghton: I do not really see that that has any bearing on the matter. If our hourly wages are higher, then presumably we in Britain are better able to afford this higher standard of social security.
This pamphlet describes various ways of paying for it. It shows a variety of methods. Some countries ask contributors to pay a higher proportion; other countries lay more upon the exchequer; other countries ask the employers to pay considerably more than the workers towards social security. There is a considerable variety of experience both of provision of and payment for social security in Europe.

So there is nothing sacrosanct in the structure of our own National Insurance Scheme. Moreover, they have not had flat-rate benefits or flat-rate contributions: they are all wage related.

I do not really think that the Minister, by his argument, has destroyed the validity of the Amendments that we have put down. What we ask him to do is to reconstruct the scheme to accommodate a higher level of benefits, and that is not beyond his capacity to do, nor beyond the capacity of the nation to bear, by whatever method the Minister might seek to finance increased National Insurance benefits. In these circumstances we must say to the Minister that he has not discouraged us from pressing this matter upon the Committee. This is where we stand, on our level of National Insurance benefits, and we ask the Committee to adopt it.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 161.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[8.26 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cunningham, Knox
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Aitken, W. T.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Allason, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Arbuthnot, John
Dance, James
Hocking, Philip N,


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Barter, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
du Cann, Edward
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Duncan, Sir James
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bell, Ronald
Eden, John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bennett, F, M. (Torquay)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastlc-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bidgood, John C.
Farr, John
James, David


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)




Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)


Box, Donald
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gammans, Lady
Kirk, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Brewls, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Leavey, J. A.


Bullard, Denys
Goodhart, Philip
Leburn, Gilmour


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Lilley, F. J. P.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Green, Alan
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'n'C'dfield>


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gurden, Harold
Loveys, Walter H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooke, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaren, Martin


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Costain, A. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Coulson, Michael
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hay, John
Maitland, Sir John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas




Marten, Neil
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, Sir Leslle (Canterbury)


Mawby, Ray
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees, Hugh
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Turner, Colin


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Morrison, John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Airey
Russell, Ronald
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Sharples, Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. sir John


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shaw, M,
Vickers, Miss Joan


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Skeet, T, H. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavelt


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smith, Dudley (Br'nf'rd &amp; Chlewick)
Wall, Patrick


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Peel, John
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Percival, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peyton, John
storey, Sir Samuel
Wise, A. R.


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pitt, Dame Edith
Tapsell, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Pott, Percivall
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)



Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, J. M. L.
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Temple, John M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Barnett, Guy
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Hooson, H. E.
Reid, William


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Denis (small Heath)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Short, Edward


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Corhet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Allce
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalvell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Loughiln, Charles
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
McColl, James
Taverne, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G, R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Neal, Harold
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Oswald, Thomas



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.

Dr. King: I beg to move, in page 12, line 19, column 2, to leave out "95 0" and to insert "102 6"
I understand, Sir Norman, that it will be convenient also to refer to the following four Amendments on the Notice Paper, that is to say, in line 19, column 3, leave out "30 0", and insert "32 6" in line 22, column 2, leave out "97 6" and insert "105 0'; in line 23, column 2, leave out "67 6" and insert "80 0"; and in line 24, column 2, leave out "67 6" and insert "80 0".
The debate we are now to have is on a matter about which, I believe, both sides of the Committee are doing new thinking. I hope that it will call from the Minister the kind of response which we were delighted to welcome in our debate on the industrial injuries aspect. These Amendments deal with almost all widows. But many remain outside any benefit and are not affected at all, while those with the meagre benefit of 10s. are also not covered. These two groups cannot be covered by these Amendments or by this debate, although subsequent Amendments will give us the opportunity to consider again the plight of the 10s. widow.
The present structure of widows' benefits is threefold. There are widows' allowances, widowed mothers' pensions and widows' pensions. I want to look at all three. First, there is the allowance for the first 13 weeks of bereavement which, under the Bill, will be 95s. a week. We seek to raise it to 102s. 6d. a week. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor appointed a committee, in 1956, to report on widowhood it was an excellent committee and produced a valuable and thoughtful report. But I believe that it made one or two errors. It said, for instance, in paragraph 27:
The period for short-term resettlement benefit of widows allowance is adequate for its purpose.
It is true that its terms of reference excluded it from dealing with the amount paid for those 13 weeks. It could only deal with the question of the 13-week period itself. I myself believe that this period is too short for the tragic process of rehabilitation and adjustment which must take place in a widow's life after bereavement, and especially if the husband's death followed a long illness, with the consequent drain on the wife, both physically and mentally, quite apart from the drain on the household economically.
The Committee said that the widow's allowance should be substantially above the widow's pension, and it suggested that it should be half as much again. The Minister now proposes that the pension should be 67s. Half as much again would bring us to 101s. 3d. We propose 102s. 6d., because in other Amendments we also seek to raise the pension. Any Government, any House of Commons, with imagination, any hon. Member of the Committee with the knowledge and experience of some friend near and dear to them who has been struck by this tragic blow, will concede the first Amendment.
Most widows step down from poverty to hardship for the rest of their lives when their good men have gone, and all we are asking in the first Amendment is that we give such a widow, for 13 weeks only,£5 2s. 6d. instead of£4 15s. for herself and 32s. 6d. instead of 30s. for her first child. This is the widow's allowance for the first 13 weeks of widowhood and the cost can be only very small, but the amount of good which the money given in this way could do could be very great.
I interpose here that one of the matters which I hope that the Minister will consider when he is thinking about this matter of widowhood is the question of what we give to the widow at the moment of bereavement, in the first weeks just after bereavement, both the amount and the time for which we give it.
The Amendment has to be considered in the context of the others, and in view of an earlier debate, we are asking for all the Amendments. This is not an academic exercise and behind them all is the desire to raise the standard of living of all widows as far as we can inside the scope of the Bill. If the Government accept the Amendment, at some subsequent time and in some subsequent Bill, we might be able to consider a really adequate widow's allowance for the first weeks of bereavement.
The third Amendment seeks to improve the lot of the widowed mother. In this connection, the 1956 Committee and, after it, the former Minister of Pensions have done magnificent work. I believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be remembered in his Parliamentary history for his work for widowed mothers, for the children of widowed


mothers and, incidentally, for disabled ex-Service men. However, we are not anywhere near the goal of right and proper treatment of the widowed mother.
I have been reading the debates on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, which was the Act which gave all widows whose husbands were insured and who had been widowed at the appropriate time, of course, 10s. a week, with additions for their children if they had any, without an age test, without a means test and without an earnings rule. We condemned it in those days as being inadequate. An important feature of that debate was that from both sides of the House there came the enunciation of a principle, a principle which emerged in our splendid debate yesterday on the earnings rule.
I quote a Conservative, Viscountess Astor:
…the widow with little children should not be forced either to go out to work or to apply to the guardians.
That was her view of the principle which we should be seeking to implement.
Our old friend, the late right hon. J. H. Thomas, in the same debate, said:
…instead of a woman being driven to work and the neglect of her children as well as of her own health, an opportunity ought to be given to her to look after her children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1925; Vol. 184, c. 303–70.]
Being a mother is a full-time job and it ought to be recognised by the State as such. The youngster who has the misfortune to lose his father should not be prevented by that misfortune from having the best education for which he is fitted, and as far as possible we should secure for him all the benefits of a home. One of the benefits of a home is that his mother should be at home, especially if his father has gone. I believe that if we apply the words of the 1956 Committee to the principle which the Committee enunciated, that we should seek to help those who
cannot reasonably be expected to re-enter the employment field and rely on their own earnings",
that group ought to include all widows who are bringing up families.
8.45 p.m.
Our Amendment would help a little We are proposing that the widowed mother's allowance be raised to 105s.
a week during the first 13 weeks, these grim 13 weeks of bereavement, instead of the Government's proposal, and we are proposing at the same time that the 67s. 6d. a week widowed mother's allowance should be raised to£4. Even with these Amendments the widowed mother and her children will be miles below the standard of living, if they have to live on this, which they would have enjoyed if the husband had been one of the lowest-paid workers in the country. Indeed, most of them, even if we carry this Amendment, will still have to go out to try to earn more money.
When we are considering the question of the widowed mother, do not let us forget that all the family commitments, or most of them, continue when the good man has died. The house still has to be the same house. The widow cannot move out of it because there is one less human being to live there, and the debts and commitments continue. I hope that the Government will look favourably at the second Amendment, which proposes to raise the widowed mother's allowance for the first 13 weeks, and the widowed mother's subsequent allowance for the rest of her widowed motherhood. I interpose to thank the Minister for what he has done, even in this Bill, to improve the lot of the widowed mother. He is following the lines of his predecessor.
The third Amendment looks at the question of the widow's pension itself. This is awarded to the widow with no children, or whose children are no longer dependent, always provided that she is over 50. I believe that the late Neville Chamberlain was right when, in 1925, he defended the pension for all widows which his Government introduced in that year. In the debate on 18th May, 1925, he said to some of his hon. Friends who wanted the age limit to be 40, and to exclude childless widows:
What about the widow who is 39½?
We would ask, in this context, what about the widow who is 49½? He continued:
What about the widow who has had one child and that child had died? Is she to lose not only the child but also the pension?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1925; Vol. 184 c. 89.]
The idea at the back of the minds of the pioneers of widows' pensions in 1925 was that there was something about widowhood itself which the State ought


to compensate. We have moved away from the sort of fundamental approach of the earlier contributory widows' pensions Acts. These Acts sought to give a man and his wife insurance against widowhood itself. It was right that we should move in the opposite direction, but I think that we have gone so far in the opposite direction, so anxious are we to avoid the State keeping able-bodied widows for all their lives, that we impose an age limit of 50, and we give the widow, even if she qualifies for the pension, which we seek to raise in this Amendment, on her widowhood, for the loss of her protector and breadwinner, only 67s. 6d., and only that if she is over 50. Our Amendment to line 24 would raise this 67s. 6d. to the£4 which we have sought throughout all these debates to underpin as the basic minimum pension.
In a way this series of Amendments may be said to be a patchwork approach to the grave problem we discussed yesterday, last Friday and many times before. It is a series of Amendments based on the principles we have so far maintained since 1946. I should be happy to know if the Minister will accept some of the Amendments. Any or all of them would improve the position of many widows. If the Amendments are accepted tonight, we shall be left only with the grim fact that there are groups of widows whose husbands were too old to get full benefit and who receive nothing or the derisory 10s. a week, on the one hand, and those between 40 and 50 years of age with no dependent children who find it very difficult to obtain suitable work.
We want a full-scale inquiry into widowhood. We have to examine whether even the 1956 recommendations can stand up to modern examination, whether or not there are improvements which we might profitably make in this part of the Welfare State. I remind the Committee that when the 1956 Committee reported on the question of widowhood it made an important qualification. Paragraph 48 said:
We wish to emphasise, however, that our conclusion"—
that is, that the present pattern was accurate and suitable—
relates to present employment conditions. If large-scale unemployment were to occur the qualifying age for widow's pension might have to be reconsidered.

I suggest that there is a further argument for this re-examination of the whole question of widowhood—the fact that employment is becoming more difficult. When it is harder to find work the people who find it hardest and on whom the impact of the present unemployment position is greatest are the disabled, on the one hand, and widows, on the other.
I hope that the Minister will approach these Amendments in the spirit in which I have endeavoured to present them, and that he will at any rate accept some of them.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I certainly have no complaint whatever about the way in which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has moved this Amendment. He has done so with great cogency and real feeling, and he has not overstressed his case which obviously he has studied very carefully.
We come back to what I said about the last Amendment, that these are ultimately questions of judgment as to exactly what the rates should be. The hon. Member suggested that the rates should be set at 7s. 6d. higher for the widow's allowance on the basis of a suggestion made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. He quoted a suggestion that the rates should be roughly half as much again as the standard rate. I think it would be a mistake to make a change of that sort in isolation. We have to keep the relativities as they are. The cost, of course, would not be enormous; it would be£½million. This being a transitional payment, of its nature it is a peculiarly difficult one to fix. As I have said, I think this is a question of judgment.
The hon. Member was only able to argue—it was a very cogent argument—that a transitional payment of this kind should be set as high as possible and he thinks we have not set it quite high enough. I am afraid that at the moment we can only agree to differ on that point. I was grateful to the hon. Member for his tribute to my predecessor and also for the recognition he made of our endeavours in this Bill to help the widowed mother.
The next Amendment is a slightly peculiar one. The widowed mother's allowance includes the allowance for the first child. As the allowance for the first child is 30s., this would mean that the increase which the hon. Gentleman proposes for the widow herself would, after


taking 30s. off 105s., again be an increase of 7s. 6d., the same amount as the hon. Gentleman suggested for the widow's allowance. There is no direct relationship between that transitional payment and any addition that might be suggested for a widowed mother. Although one recognises the particular position of a widowed mother, without fairly cogent reasons it would be difficult to depart from the general principle of the same flat-rate benefit all round, which is incorporated in the widowed mother's allowance. The widowed mother's allowance consists of the basic rate, plus 30s. for the child.
The hon. Gentleman said that the house still has to be the same house. As I indicated on Clause 2, the conception of maintaining a basic rate of 26s. free of the earnings rule for widowed mothers, all of whom are presumably potential earners, was in recognition of the fact that the house still has to be the same house. In other words, what we are trying to do is to add on to the allowances for the children, which are unaffected by earnings, a contribution to the expenses incurred in maintaining a home for the children. It forms part of that whole conception.

Dr. King: I appreciate that. It is a real contribution to the widowed mother who goes out to work, because no matter what she earns she is now keeping 26s. Part of my case was that the same sort of consideration should lead the Minister to make a similar allowance to the widowed mother who cannot go out to work.

Mr. Macpherson: This would conflict in a way with, for example, the unemployed widower who is looking after children. No particular allowance is paid for him either. It is difficult in a matter of this kind to depart from the standard rate benefit. We have not thought it proper to do so on this occasion.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should adhere for the widow's pension to the amount proposed for the single standard benefit in the last Amendment and introduce a£4 widow's pension. Again it seems to be rather difficult to depart from the overall standard benefit rate without a good deal more consideration.
The hon. Gentleman suggested a full-scale inquiry into widowhood. This is a suggestion which has come from other parts of the House. This is something we are bearing in mind. Very careful consideration has to be given to the timing of inquiries of this kind. I will take very careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The main burden of the Minister's case is that in all the matters which were raised so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) it is a question of judgment. We have recently disposed of many Amendments on which we attempted to raise the basic rate for many people. We were rather afraid that those Amendments would be rejected by the Government. It was perhaps particularly for that reason that we wished to have these Amendments discussed, because they apply only to widows.
The Minister said that no cogent reason has been given why the widowed mother's allowance should be raised by 7s. 6d. or why the widow's allowance for the first 13 weeks should be raised by that amount. Anyone who has examined the question of widowhood must have come to the conclusion that these widows need much more financial assistance than they are getting.
The additional 7s. 6d. for which we are asking may not necessarily be the right figure. We felt, however, that it might be the highest amount we could now get from the Government. The figure of 7s. 6d. is by no means sacrosanct and we had to use our judgment; and the Minister referred to this in terms of it being a matter of judgment. We have been told that we must consider the feelings of society in these matters and that sometimes, if the feeling is strong enough, the Government might be influenced. Surely the Minister must know that feeling in the country on this topic is very strong? If we cannot help all the categories of those who receive benefit, at least we should try to help more than we have the widows, particularly the widowed mothers.
The Minister said that we cannot depart from the basic rate without full consideration. He must be aware that


time and again a special case has been made out for the widow. In view of that, the Government should themselves have given this subject special consideration. The Minister referred us to the 26s. which the widowed mother will be allowed to keep and the right hon. Gentleman said that that was in recognition of the fact that even on the death of her husband she would still have to maintain the house in which her children live. But 26s. will not go far if the widow and her children are in a house which is highly rented or is being bought on a mortgage.
Great difficulties are placed on widows, particularly on widowed mothers, who are doing all they can to give their children what both parents in other instances are able to provide for theirs. So although we are glad that the 26s. is to be left—and we wanted a much better provision in our previous Amendments—we still do not think that the position, particularly of the widowed mother, is, as we would want it to be today.

It is no use the Minister saying that we cannot depart from the basic rate without giving the matter full consideration. I emphasise again that that consideration should have been given some time ago and that the small increase for which we are asking over and above that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is the minimum we consider these people should receive. We would have thought that even if he could not accept the previous Amendments he would have accepted this one which deals with a special class of widow. We shall return to this matter in the future, until these widows, particularly the widowed mothers, get the justice that is long overdue. Because the Minister's response has been unsatisfactory, we intend to divide the Committee.

Question put, That "95 0" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 152.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[9.5 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Aitken, W. T.
Emery, Peter
Lilley, F. J. P.


Allason, James
Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.


Barter, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Gammans, Lady
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bidgood, John C.
Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfrles)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Maitland, Sir John


Bishop, F. P.
Green, Alan
Marshall, Douglas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Box, Donald
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bullard, Denys
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Cleaver, Leonard
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cooke, Robert
Kill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hocking, Philip N.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Coulson, Michael
Hopkins, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Percival, Ian


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, John


Curran, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Dance, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, Percivall


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Pym, Francis


du Cann, Edward
Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Duncan, Sir James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Eden, John
Leavey, J. A.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leburn, Gilmour
Rees, Hugh




Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'at'r, Moss Side)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Teeling, Sir William
Wall, Patrick


Russell, Ronald
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sharpies, Richard
Thatcher, Mrs. Maragaret
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Shaw, M.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.>


Sheet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wise, A. R.


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Speir, Rupert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Woodhouse, C. M.


Stevens, Geoffrey
Turner, Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Storey, Sir Samuel
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Peel and Mr. MacArthur.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vane, W. M. F.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pentland, Norman


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayntan, F. H.
Probort, Arthur


Barnett, Guy
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rhodes, H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Hooson, H. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Collick, Percy
Janes, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swain, Thomas


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Taverne, D.


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E.
Mcndelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan
Milne, Edward
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Morris, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Oswald, Thomas



Gourlay, Harry
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grey, Charles
Parker, John
Mr. Irving and Mr. McCann.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Peart, Frederick

9.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end, to insert:
6. Widow's basic pension payable by virtue of the National Insurance (Pensions, Existing Beneficiaries and Other Persons) (Transitional) Regulations, 1948.
20 0/—/—/—.

We need not spend much time on this Amendment. On Friday, 25th January, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made a very strong case, which we on this side of the Committee felt was unanswerable, to have the basic pension payable to the 10s. widow increased. I wish to stress as shortly


as possible the need for the increase. In 1948, widows in that category were granted the 10s. pension as one of the transitional benefits. If in 1948 it was considered that 10s. was a fair amount to give them, by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that they should not have an increase. We are not asking for a large increase; only that the 10s. be increased to 20s. When we consider the rise in the cost of living and we recall all the arguments that have been made at the Dispatch Box both yesterday and today, the case for our Amendment has been made conclusively. There is, possibly, a case for a higher increase than the 10s. for which we ask.
Some of these women, who struggle to work when they can get it—in areas like mine, many of them simply cannot get it—pay almost the whole of the 10s. as their insurance contribution to ensure that when they reach the age of 60 they will have a pension in their own right.
It is strange that whenever a Bill of this nature is before us the Government resist this kind of Amendment. When there was time to develop the case on 25th January, they again resisted what we wanted to do. As the Minister himself said, however, the Government have not been able to give any cogent reason why this simple increase should not be given to these widows.
When she replies, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that some widows have less need. We are thinking, however, of the vast majority of the 10s. widows who are in the older category. Our concern is for them. Even if it would mean giving to others whose need is not as great, I am all in favour of giving an increase so that the vast majority who are in difficult circumstances get this little increase for which we ask.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes at most and I have not previously intervened in these debates. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in her Amendment. It is not a great Amendment. It would not alter the position very much, it would not put all the anomalies and injustices right, it would not put the widows concerned in the same position

as other people are in and as they should be, but it would at least do something.
I do not want to debate the technical difficulties. I do not consider them quite as insuperable as is sometimes made out, but, undoubtedly, they exist. I remind the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) used to say about much greater difficulties during the war. He used to say that if a matter was difficult, we would do it at once and that if it was impossible, it might take a day or two longer. I am perfectly certain that, given the will, there is sufficient ingenuity and technical skill in the Department to find a way of overcoming the difficulties.
These people are not in a trade union. They cannot withhold their labour because they live by their labour. They cannot cause difficulties. There are not many of them. Each year, their number grows smaller. They will not affect the result of an election, either a by-election or a General Election. If the Whips were to be taken off for this one occasion during the Committee stage of the Bill, does the hon. Lady doubt that 80 to 90 per cent. of hon. Members would vote for the Amendment? The country would rejoice at it. Even those who do not benefit by it would rejoice; indeed, perhaps they would be pleased most of all.
The present position is inhuman. It is unjust. It is anomalous. Public opinion does not support it. Parliamentary opinion does not support it. It is not difficult to put right. Why in the world do not the Government take their courage in their hands and bring this nonsense to an end?

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the matter again and not give it the brush-off, saying that it is impossible, that this arrangement has gone on for a long time, that these widows are in a privileged position inasmuch as they receive the 10s. when they are out at work.
Let us consider again the background to this proposal. It was found expedient, when we drafted our National Insurance Act, to continue the 10s. to these people, and, therefore, that 10s. has continued all these years. I think that there can


be no section of the community which has not, during the intervening years, had a rise. The Minister cannot justify this by saying that these widows are receiving the 10s. and working. That is a threadbare argument to use today, having regard to the steep increases in costs which have taken place.
There are not many of these widows, and their number is diminishing. The total expenditure involved would be well worth while. I hope that the hon. Lady will not feel bound by instructions to say that she must reject the Amendment. If she cannot give us a promise now or cannot accept the Amendment at this stage, will she assure the Committee that the Government will consider the matter again and see whether it is possible to make the adjustment in another place?

Mr. S. Silverman: Now.

Mr. Popplewell: My hon. Friend says "Now". I am making allowances. The Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, and, perhaps, a Parliamentary Secretary has not quite that power. What I am concerned to do is to press the hon. Lady to do something for this small band of very worthy people.

Mr. Victor Yates: I do not apologise for returning to this matter again. We recently debated it in the House, and I expect that we shall have the same arguments put against it tonight. It is a human problem. There are only 85,000 people involved. During the previous debate, I told the House of letters which I had received from a number of widows who were in great distress. I shall not go over that again, but I do not consider that an adequate answer was given by the Minister.
Do the Government really appreciate the pain and distress which comes to a widow who is excluded from the normal pension and is given the 10s.? Let me quote a letter which I recently received from a widow in Birmingham. She says:
I lost my husband in December, 1953, and if only he had lived for a further three months I should have received the full pension of£2 17s. 6d. As it is, I pick up the large sum of 10s, per week less 8s. 9d. stamp (which has to be paid whether I am working or not to enable me to qualify for my full pension at 60) leaving me with 1s. 3d. per week.

This pension was fixed over twenty years ago, and it has not been revised at all. Here is a widow who has to pay 8s. 9d., or 8s. 8½d. to be precise, for the stamp out of her 10s. pension. She tells me that she worked through the war years and has paid National Insurance since she was 16. Her husband also paid it. She has had nervous exhaustion, blood pressure and has been constantly under the care of the doctor. This is an Amendment which should not be brushed off with technical answers, which is all that we have been given so far.
There are other cases, some of them heartrending. One widow explained to me that over the years she has struggled to try to obtain a living by taking in lodgers. Then her health gave way. Another has done her best for her children, and two of them have done very well at school. When they are 18, her National Insurance pension comes to and end and anything extra they get comes out of the 10s. She is still trying to do her best for her children, who have not yet finished their education.
I wholeheartedly support the Amendment. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary ought to understand more than most about the plight of women. What argument can she advance against this Amendment, apart from saying that if the Government do this for some they will have to do it for others? As I have said before, the anxiety of these women is worse now than it was even a few months ago. The money which she saves if she does not have to pay 8s. 9d. for the stamp is no more than the cost of a hundredweight of coal. The suffering of these women is simply enormous. I am tired of hearing answers such as those we have heard in the past. I hope that the hon. Lady will say something new and will at least give us some hope that this matter will be further examined and that some increase will be made.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, because there are many other hon. Members who can put the case for the 10s. widow much more eloquently than I can, but I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). He pointed out that this 10s. pension has not been increased since it was first awarded.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—in fact, I challenge her to tell us—in terms of 1963 values, how much 10s. is worth now compared with when this pension was first instituted so that we can see by how much its value has fallen.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was kind enough to point out that we spent a long time debating this issue a few days ago, and, therefore, was also kind enough to be brief in moving the Amendment. The hon. Lady and I are both in a difficult situation. Each of us is convinced absolutely by our own arguments, but neither is able to convince the other.
May I put my case for the view of the Government why we cannot increase the 10s. pension, at any rate for the time being; in fact, why we cannot increase it at all. Perhaps I might ask the hon. Lady if she could help me before I embark upon my reasoning. The Amendment which is in her name refers only to 10s. pensions in payment in 1948. Perhaps she would say whether that is what she intends, or if she intends to refer to all 10s. pensions.

Miss Herbison: All 10s. pensions.

Mrs. Thatcher: The great majority have come into payment since 1948. This Amendment refers only to those which were in payment at the time. Perhaps I may use that as a starting off point.
A great change came over the National Insurance Scheme at about that time. The position with regard to this particular group of pensions then in payment was this: those widows then receiving the 10s. pension, who would have qualified for a widow's pension or a widowed mother's pension had they been widowed under the terms of the new scheme—that is to say, those who, at the time they had the 10s, pension in 1948, had children, or were over 50 and sick—would have got a pension under the new scheme. Those automatically got the rise from 10s. to 26s. as it then was, and they have had successive increases since.
The hon. Lady, I know, is well aware of these facts, but a number of hon. Members are not and there are a number

of people in the country who are not. It gives a wrong impression when people say that the 10s. widow's pensions in payment in 1948 have never been increased. That is not entirely true, because those who would have qualified under the new scheme straight away got an increase because they had children or because they were old and sick.
That left in receipt of the 10s. pension people who, under the new scheme, would have got nothing at all because they were widowed when they were under 50 or had no children. Under the new scheme they would only have got the 13 weeks bereavement grant which now, under the new Bill, would amount to£61 15s. taking the total over the 13 weeks, and after that nothing else, and they would have had to keep up their contributions for retirement pension.
The comparison is between the person who got 10s. and her modern sister who, in identical circumstances, would have got nothing. By far the great majority of these pensions have come into payment since 1948. They are payments made to women whose husbands contributed under the old scheme and who were married to those husbands before 1948. But I must point out that that scheme went out of existence, and the contributions under that specific scheme went out of existence at the same time, so no premiums for this particular pension under this scheme have been paid for fifteen years, although new awards have been coming into payment during those fifteen years and are still this year coming into payment to women who are widowed under circumstances that would not have entitled them to anything under the new scheme.

Dr. King: I am sure that the hon. Lady wants to be fair. The husbands of these ladies paid their proper contributions under the old Health Insurance Scheme as long as it existed, and they paid their contributions under the new one as long as they lived. The benefits that were promised them in 1926 when they began to pay are the benefits that we are talking about.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that there is any substantial disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself. There are two schemes, the National


Insurance Scheme and the old Widows' Pension Scheme—two lots of contributions, one for the old Widows' Pension Scheme, which gave the 10s. widow's pension, and one for the National Insurance Scheme which gave no pension under circumstances which I have described. When we dropped the old scheme, naturally contributions terminated under the old scheme and there were only contributions for the benefit of the new scheme. So there is no difference between what the hon. Gentleman and I are saying.
People who are entitled under this are people whose husbands paid a minimum of 104 contributions of a few pence a week under the old scheme. There was no minimum period of marriage at all under the old scheme. What I am trying to get across to the hon. Gentleman is that because the scheme went out of existence premiums have not been paid for fifteen years although all of the benefits of it have been preserved. I hope I have made myself clear and I hope I have not wasted the time of the Committee in drawing that distinction.

Dr. King: The hon. Lady will agree that this is important. Their husbands paid under the 1926 scheme which gave those ladies as of right, if their husbands died, 10s. a week. When the old scheme perished and the new scheme was substituted their rights did not go. They got 10s. as of right. We are questioning the value of it.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I point this out to the hon. Gentleman? Their rights were not only preserved, but we have had the transitional period of fifteen years already and there is no end of it in sight at all because some other people whose benefits are now coming into payment may have derived them from the minimum number of contributions. I do not complain about that at all, but the scheme being extinct the premiums have not been kept up although the benefits have.

Miss Herbison: Miss Herbison rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not want to labour the point too long. I hope that I have made myself clear. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady is making very great play about not a single

contribution coming in to meet these pensions since 1948. It seems that the whole basis of her case is that one cannot raise this 10s. because of that. If that is the basis of her case and we follow it to its logical conclusion we come to the old people who were retired in 1948 They were getting 10s. a week pension, and we immediately increased it to 26s. Some of those old people will still be living today, and when there is an increase they get an increase. It does seem to me that one cannot possibly put up a case against the widows when we compare them with the old people. And, thank heaven, that case was never put against the old people.

Mrs. Thatcher: Apart from the specific case which the hon. Lady mentioned, apart from the five-year option period which we now have for old people, their pension had already come into payment. The only difference between that scheme and the new scheme is what I call the five-year option retirement period. But we are not discussing old-age or retirement pensions. We are discussing widows' pensions. It only appears to the hon. Lady that I am putting too much play on this case, although I have tried to make myself clear in response to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Itchen.
If one looks at it on a rather different benefit basis and one compares the old 10s. widow with her modern sister who would not get anything under the new scheme, one finds this transpires. If a person is widowed now and is under 50 and childless, then, unless she has the old reserved right, she will get just the grant of£61 15s. in weekly amounts for 13 weeks. If she happens to have a reserved right under the old scheme she will probably get that grant because she will have been insured under the new scheme as well. When that period ends she will be entitled to 10s. till she becomes 60. If she is 45 when widowed she will receive, in payments of 10s.,£390 apart from bereavement grant—£390 more than her sister would get under the new scheme.
If she is a widow of 40 she would get a sum of£520. For a widow of 35 the sum is£650. That is very much to her advantage over her modern sister, but I should point out that these sums under the new awards are now paid out of the National Insurance Fund supported by


the contributions of people not entitled to this particular benefit.
Those are our main reasons for saying that we cannot accede to the hon. Lady's request in the Amendment. As I have pointed out, the Amendment would not do what she seeks to achieve.

The Chairman: Mr. Bence.

Mr. S. Silverman: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I ask one question? I suggested in my short intervention that if the Whips were taken off there would be a clear decision on this. The hon. Lady has made a case. I do not deny that. It is rather an administrative, bureaucratic, actuarial case—some people would call it a third-class insurance company case—but it satisfies her and I am not complaining. As there is this complete opposition of administrative view, would she not consider letting the House of Commons in Committee decide this matter according to its own conscience and judgment, without involving in it confidence in the Government? Let us have a vote on this with the Whips off and see how many hon. Members are for the Amendment.

The Chairman: Order. The Commit tell will have noticed that I called the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) interposed, saying "Before the hon. Lady sits down". That would have been all right for a short question, but not for a considered speech. Mr. Bence.

Mr. Cyril Bence: In the twelve years that I have been in the House of Commons I have heard many times the statement that it is the desire of both sides that in granting social benefits to different sections of the community we shall increase those benefits in such measure that the increasing prosperity of the country shall be shared by all sections. However, listening to this debate and previous debates, it seems to me that an exception is made of certain widows. Apparently all widows in Britain shall have all sorts of things done for them—except the ones we are talking about.
I cannot understand this. Even last night I supported hon. Gentlemen opposite in their plea on behalf of widows who will suffer some loss as a result of events

in Egypt in 1956. I have heard splendid pleas for those widows. Tonight we are making a plea for the most impoverished section of our community, the widows who are receiving only the 10s. pension—

Mrs. Thatcher: They are not the most impoverished section, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had read the speech of my right hon. Friend on this subject on 26th January.

Mr. Bence: Am I to believe that the prosperity of certain sections of the community is based on the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? If I believed the things I heard from those benches, I should believe anything. I would say from my experience that those who suffer widowhood are very often the most unfortunate people in the country at that time. It is tragic for a woman to be widowed. It is a very unfortunate circumstance for a working-class woman with a growing family to be widowed.
I am shocked that we should have got from a Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) rightly said, the sort of thing I should have got if I had claimed from an insurance company, which is concerned with commercial practice and preserving its financial stability and profit. We have had almost exactly the same answer from a Minister in respect of this small section of the community.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide on this matter and that the people at large will realise just how mean the Government are towards the working-class widows, in contrast with their attitude to widows with property or shares, as expressed through the Rent Act and other Measures. They have used such Measures to help, so they claimed, widows who have property and shares. But for the 10s. widow they do nothing.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. McKay: I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on her logical argument and lawyer-like explanation. It does not follow, however, that we accept her judgment, or the judgment of her advisers, for maintaining the present position. I always understood that any Government could overcome technicalities. I have always understood that this Parliament cannot be tied indefinitely to whatever technical arguments may be put up


against a course which it wishes to follow. It follows, therefore, that if we think it wise that widow's incomes should be increased, then the technicalities must be changed if they stand in the way.
The hon. Lady argued the case for keeping things as they are on the ground that other widows have been dealt with in a certain way. But that way is itself not very satisfactory to the Labour movement. If the Government judged that things should be changed, they would change them. The only thing standing in the way is the Government's refusal to overcome the technicalities. The hon. Lady's argument was weak, dependent purely on technicalities without judging the position either morally or socially.
The provision that a widow should be 50 before she could get a pension if her family was above the dependency limit was based on a bad argument. It is ridiculous that a widow who has raised a family for whom she has received dependants' allowances should lose all her allowances when her family reaches the age limit and she becomes 50 years of age.
It is said that to make this change would make it very difficult to refuse comparable concessions to young widows of 20 or 25. But we are here concerned with women who have gone through a trying time raising a family during a long period of widowhood. That is a bad argument. The technical difficulties can be overcome if the will is there.
I appeal to the spirit of the Conservative Party, regardless of the numbers involved, to consider the moral argument for the change which we propose. These widows always have been entitled to receive 20s. Practicallly every National Insurance beneficiary has received increases in benefit as the years have gone by. However, as the country's economic circumstances have changed there has been no change in the financial position of these widows.
The Government's present view is unjust. It is for hon. Members opposite to bring moral pressure to bear to see that the treatment of these women is brought into line with that accorded to other sections of the community.

Mr. Donald Wade: This 10s. was granted in recogni-

tion of an anomaly when the present scheme was first introduced in 1948. The anomaly applied both to those who became entitled to 10s. in 1948 and those who have come into benefit since.

Dr. King: It is not an anomaly. It is a right. Their husbands paid for it.

Mr. Wade: I will not argue about that. I agree that it could be regarded as a right.
The Government's view is simply that, because Governments have refused an increase for many years, they are bound by previous statements and must continue to say, "No". That is the gist of the Government's case. Surely the fairest solution is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)? Calculate the real money value of 10s. when it was first decided on.

Dr. King: 1926.

Mr. Wade: I would settle for 1948. I shall not argue whether it should be 1926 or 1948. Calculate the value as at 1948, and increase it so that there will not be any fall in real money terms. Failing that, if the Minister is so unwilling, so reluctant, to depart from the case that has been put from that Bench so many times, may I suggest another way out which would go some little way to meet the sense of hardship felt by these 10s. widows?
Why not credit them with the contribution which they are now having to pay out of the 10s.—I think that it is 8s. 9d.—until they become entitled to a pension under the new scheme? That, I think, would go some way towards meeting the very real feeling of injustice of which I know the Minister is aware.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: It would be impertinent to presume that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have not studied with great care every part of this Bill, but the House and the Committee have not discussed in great detail every part of it, and in relation to the hon. Lady's speech I want to refer to Clause 6, because this is the Clause which appears in all Bills of this kind, and which no one wishes to discuss at the time.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is aware that we are discussing an Amendment to Schedule 2. Schedule 2 has nothing to do with Clause 6.

Mr. Parkin: You will be aware, Sir William, that the hon. Lady developed at some length an actuarial argument against the Amendment in terms of funds and contributions and all the rest of it. What I desire to point out is that although it may be convenient to discuss the balance of payments in and out from stamps to benefits and so on, although it may be convenient to assess from time to time what benefits can be borne by the National Insurance Scheme, the moment of truth is in Clause 6 which appears in every one of these Bills, where it says:
There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament…
It never says, "There shall be paid out of moneys paid in by contributors, by widows, by husbands, by people before they were sick", and every time in this moment of truth—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this is not the right and proper occasion to develop the argument he is now making.

Mr. Parkin: But, with respect, Sir William, at the other end of this Clause there is a similar statement:
There shall be paid into the Exchequer any sums falling to be so paid in consequence of this Act.
The contributions are paid into the Exchequer. It is clear—and I appreciate your suspicion that one could on the basis of this develop a very wide argument indeed attacking the whole myth—

The Chairman: Order. It is for just that reason that I hope the hon. Member will not on this Amendment go further. We are discussing a very restricted Amendment. I can read it out for the hon. Member if it is not before him. The Amendment is in Schedule 2, page 12, line 24, at end insert:
6. Widow's basic pension payable by virtue of the National Insurance (Pensions, Existing Beneficiaries and Other Persons) (Transitional) Regulations, 1948. 20 0/—/—/—.
That figure is to be in place of 10s. The hon. Member cannot stray into a full-dress debate on the whole principle of that Bill.

Mr. Parkin: I was about to explain, Sir William, that I had no such intention. I was attempting to reply to the hon. Lady's assertion that there was something wrong with this 10s. situation because there had been no corresponding sum paid into any

fund to sustain it. I hope you will agree that in reply to that argument I am entitled to quote two phrases from this common Clause 6. Where we may for convenience discuss what payments have been paid in and paid out, it is only a good help to get this sense of balance in this Fund. It is only a convention but it is a myth. Nobody believes that there is actuarial control of the Fund. Nobody in the Government believes it. Nobody in his heart believes it.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Parkin: I hope that what I was saying will be within the recollection of the Committee, because I should hate to have to go through it all again, in a struggle to convince you, Sir William, of the innocence of my intentions. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary was making a point which in the circumstances was exceptionally unfair. Even if there were such a fund and these payments had been invested in it—as they have not—there is no difference whatever. Money paid in one generation budget into the Exchequer and invested in some form, in schools, hospitals or what not, is part of the budget of the day. This is part of the scheme which guarantees that in later years Parliament will provide—but it can only provide from the taxation of the year—certain benefits.
That is the whole basis in every insurance scheme, and it is safeguarded by the little Clause, printed in italics, which appears in every such Bill. I do not think it fair of the hon. Lady to select this particular category of widows and to say that they are not sustained by National Insurance contributions when neither they nor anyone else is. It is fair to assume that the benefit promised when the con-


tributions were made should now be increased by nominal money values to offset some of the loss sustained during the decline in the value of money.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 177.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[10.4 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Ainsley, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Probert, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Redhead, E. C.


Awbory, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Rhodes, H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Barnett, Guy
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rodgars, W. T. (Stockton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridge ton)
Holman, Percy
Ross, William


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Short, Edward


Boardman, H.
Hooson, H. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Houghton, Douglas
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
small, William


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Carmichael, Nell
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Steel, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Swain, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, D.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Tomney, Frank


Dodds, Norman
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wade, Donald


Driberg, Tom
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wainwright, Edwin


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, Archie
Warbey, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Finch, Harold
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Forman, J. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Paget, R. T.



George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gourlay, Harry
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Greenwood, Anthony
Pentland, Norman
Mr. McCann.


Grey, Charles
Popplewell, Ernest





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Duncan, Sir James


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, John


Allason, James
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, w.)
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Cleaver, Leonard
Emery, Peter


Bainlel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Fell, Anthony


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Costain, A. P.
Finlay, Graeme


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coulson, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gammans, Lady


Bidgood, John C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gibson-Watt, David


Bitten, John
Curran, Charles
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)


Bigge-Davison, John
Currle, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bishop, F. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Box, Donald
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond


Brewis, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Green, Alan


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Doughty, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Billiard, Denys
Drayson, G. B.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
du Cann, Edward
Gurden, Harold




Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall (Dumfries)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Sir John
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marten, Neil
Speir, Rupert


Hastings, Stephen
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hay, John
Mawby, Ray
Storey, Sir Samuel


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfok)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, moss Side)


Hocking, Philip N.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Teeling, Sir William


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


Hopkins, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Howard, John (Southampton, Teat)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


James, David
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kirk, Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Vickers, Miss Joan


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Leavey, J. A.
Pym, Francis
Wall, Patrick


Lilley, F. J. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees, Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wise, A. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Roberta, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Woollam, John


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Worsley, Marcus


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)



Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMaster, Stanley R.
Shaw, M.
Mr. Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.

Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACTS.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, column 4, to leave out "115 shillings" and to insert "120 shillings".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the following Amendments:

In line 30, column 4, leave out "86 shillings and 3 pence" and insert "94 shillings and 2 pence".

In line 34, column 4, leave out "57 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "62 shillings and 9 pence".

In line 37, column 4, leave out "Three hundred and eighty pounds" and insert "Four hundred and eleven pounds eight shillings".

In page 14, line 8, column 4, leave out "115 shillings" and insert "120 shillings".

In line 10, column 4, leave out "103 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "110 shillings and 3 pence".

In line 12, column 4, leave out "92 shillings" and insert "101 shillings".

In line 13, column 4, leave out "80 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "88 shillings and 3 pence".

In line 15, column 4, leave out "69 shillings" and insert "75 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 17, column 4, leave out "57 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "62 shillings and 9 pence".

In line 19, column 4, leave out "46 shillings" and insert "51 shillings".

In line 20, column 4, leave out "34 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "37 shillings and 3 pence".

In line 22, column 4, leave out "23 shillings" and insert "25 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 29, column 4, leave out "67 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "80 shillings".

In line 32, column 4, leave out "38 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "42 shillings".

In line 48, column 4, leave out "50 shillings" and insert "52 shillings".

In line 52, column 4, leave out "100 shillings" and insert "103 shillings".

In page 15, line 9, column 4, leave out "20 shillings" and insert "22 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 12, column 4, leave out "12 shillings" and insert "12 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 16, column 4, leave out "41 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "45 shillings".

In line 26, column 4, leave out "95 shillings" and insert "102 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 31, column 4, leave out "75 shillings" and insert "90 shillings".

In line 35, column 4, leave out "20 shillings" and insert "22 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 38, column 4, leave out "12 shillings" and insert "12 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 43, column 4, leave out "10 shillings" and insert "10 shillings and 6 pence".

In page 16, line 6, column 4, leave out "115 shillings" and insert "120 shillings".

In line 19, column 4, leave out "30 shillings" and insert "32 shillings and 6 pence".

In line 39, column 4, leave out, "115 shillings" and insert "120 shillings".

In line 43, column 4, leave out "86 shillings and 3 pence" and insert "94 shillings and 2 pence".

In line 45, column 4, leave out "57 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "62 shillings and 9 pence".

10.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: As the Committee will have noticed, with this Amendment we are discussing a great number of others. I will speak as briefly as I can, as there are still a number of Amendments on which, if we do not get satisfaction from the Government, we want to register our vote. I should like to take this opportunity of adding my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he reacted to our Amendments on the old workmen's compensation cases and the time-barred pneumoconiosis cases. The Minister will know that this subject has been very close to my heart for many years, and I am most grateful that something is now to be done.
This Amendment seeks to bring the basic industrial injury rate for the adult worker from 115s. to 120s., and all the other Amendments deal with payments for industrial injuries. I want to make it quite clear that we realise only too well that if what we are asking for is granted the same increases will occur in war disablement pensions, because ever since 1948 the two have moved side by side.
The Bill proposes to increase the industrial injuries payment from 97s. 6d. to 115s., but we feel that the increase is not large enough and seek another 5s. The sum of 115s. is little more than one-third of the average male workers earnings today. A worker at one moment is healthy and strong—the next moment he may be seriously disabled. Not only has he sometimes to go through a very long period of physical suffering but, because of the drastic reduction in his income, he very often goes through a great deal of mental suffering, too.
That is something over which the man has no control at all. The accident has happened in the course of his work, or the industrial disease has happened as a result of his work. Although we know that the other benefits, such as the unemployability supplement, which is being increased, and the special hardship allowance later take care of some of these cases, there still remains a very big gap between a full wage and one-third of a full wage. We believe that the basic rate should in all cases be increased.
I know of men in this position—men who have been disabled after 1948, who are in receipt of these benefits and will get the proposed increase. Many of them are so seriously disabled that they need continual medical care. The prescription charge is now 2s. per item, and as they may need a number of items in one week quite a considerable amount of their industrial injury benefit goes in this way. Very often, these people are so far above the National Assistance Board rate that they are not entitled to a refund of the prescription charges. They must pay—as a result of an accident that they have suffered in industry.
I also remind the Minister that some of these people who have been earning good money, and are thrifty and careful,


have been trying to buy their own homes. They are put in very great difficulty when their income is cut by almost two-thirds.
We say that the 5s. increase and the relative increases in the other cases are very little. The Minister may tell us that the cost of these Amendments would be so great that the Industrial Injuries Fund would not stand it, but the Fund is in very good heart. We are increasing it now by 1d. from the employer and 1d. from the worker, and only about a year ago we decreased it by the same amount from both. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the 100 per cent. industrially disabled man and all the physical and mental suffering which he faces, taking into account the great financial hardship which he falls into when an accident takes place. I am sure that if he takes all these matters into account he will be most willing to grant this very modest increase over and above the increase proposed in the Bill, particularly in view of the present state of the Fund.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who has so ably put forward this long list of Amendments, has done so with her accustomed civility and reasonableness. She has lumped together both the short-term and the long-term benefits. The total cost of doing what she proposes would be over£4 million a year. She has contended that with the increase proposed in the Bill the standard benefit will approximate to slightly more than one-third of average present-day earnings. That is perfectly correct, but we must not forget that in addition in certain cases there are the supplementary allowances and, where there are dependants, there are generous allowances for them and each of these are being increased by the Bill.
The hon. Lady has argued that a rise of 5s. on the Government's proposals, that is 5s. on the main rate which we are considering and proportionate rises on the other rates would make a great difference to these unfortunate people. No one would deny that it would make a difference, but we are not convinced that it would make that great difference.

Mr. Houghton: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that we ought to have asked for more?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I certainly did not suggest that, though I think that we all agree that this sort of misfortune cannot and should not be measured in terms of money. Our duty is to try to compensate in a small degree for what these unfortunate men and women have suffered.

Mr. Bence: What about to a large degree?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The Amendments are a logical progression of the Amendments on the National Insurance schedule of benefits. I take the Amendment which has been moved, with its National Insurance counterpart amended as desired by the Opposition, as an example. It reduces the differential so long enjoyed by the industrial injury benefit scheme.
The Bill makes the standard rate of National Insurance benefit 67s. 6d. and the industrial injury benefit and full rate disablement benefit 115s., giving a lead of 70 per cent. in favour of the man or woman who is injured in an accident at work. This is roughly the same differential which the Industrial Injuries Scheme has for long enjoyed.
If the Amendments were accepted, the National Insurance standard would become 80s. and the industrial injuries standard would become 120s. Despite the addition of 5s. on the standard rate which the Opposition suggest, this reduces the lead in favour of those industrially injured to only 50 per cent., upsetting a differential which has been much the same for 15 years and has only varied between 69 per cent. and 73 per cent. What the Government propose is that it should remain within those limits giving about a 70 per cent. advantage to the industrially injured.
We do not consider that the upsetting of this preference would be justified by so very small a rise of 5s. a week on the standard rate and the related rises in all the following Amendments would, as I have said, amount to a total of over£4 million annually. For this reason, we cannot recommend the Committee to accept this series of Amendments.

Question put, That "115 shillings" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 151, Noes 118.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Percival, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhew, Victor
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Allason, James
Gower, Raymond
Pitt, Dame Edith


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Prior, J. M. L.


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pym, Francis


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bidgood, John C.
Hay, John
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rees, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Shaw, M.


Braine, Bernard
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brewls, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullard, Denys
Iremonger, T. L.
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Carr, Compton (Barona Court)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Storey, Sir Samuel


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Tapsell, Peter


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, Sir William


Cooper, A. E.
Leburn, Gilmour
Temple, John M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lilley, F. J. p.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Currie, G. B. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLaren, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vane, W. M. F.


du Cann, Edward
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall (Durnfried)
Wakefield, sir Wavell


Eden, John
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton
Wise, A. R.


Fell, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Woollam, John


Finlay, Graeme
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neave, Airey



Gammane, Lady
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. MacArthur.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Peel, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Deer, George
Harper, Joseph


Ainsley, William
Dempsey, dames
Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Beaney, Alan
Driberg, Tom
Holman, Percy


Bence, Cyril
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Holt, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hooson, H. E.


Blyton, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Douglas


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fernyhough, E.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, Harold
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, James
Fitch, Alan
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Carmichael, Nell
Fletcher, Eric
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cliffe, Michael
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kelley, Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
King, Dr. Horace


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Greenwood, Anthony
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William
Loughlin, Charlee




Lubbock, Eric
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


McCann, John
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Redhead, E. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Manuel, Archie
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, Frank


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wade, Donald


Mason, Roy
Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, William
Warbey, William


Millan, Bruce
Short, Edward
weitzman, David


Milne, Edward
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, John
Small, William
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Neal, Harold
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Peart, Frederick
stones, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pentland, Norman
Taverne, D.



Popplewell, Ernest
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Grey and Dr. Broughton.

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, column 4, to leave out "46 shillings" and to insert "60 shillings".
This important Amendment relates to special hardship allowance under the Industrial Injuries Act. I should explain to the Committee, as briefly as I can, that this special hardship allowance was put into the Industrial Injuries Act for the purpose of compensating a man, to some extent at least, for the loss of earning capacity. It has some relationship, in a way, to the old workmen's compensation system, and its importance has increased with the years having regard to the fact that for the most part it is the skilled workman, the higher-paid workman, who finds that as a result of an accident or industrial disease he is fit only for light work and has thus lost a considerable earning capacity.
Let me put to the Committee the case of the skilled engineer, or collier, or such people as those who have been trained in industry and who get fairly high remuneration. Take the case of a man getting£20 or£25 a week. He may have been apprenticed for some years and, consequently, is highly trained. As a result of an accident—it may be only a minor one—he is no longer able to carry out his skilled occupation.
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) will remember that when this hardship allowance was introduced we raised the case of the engine driver who loses an eye. It has taken him years to reach his position.
Loss of faculty through losing an eye might not be assessed very highly. The man might receive 10–20 per cent. as a disablement pension, which would represent 10–15s. per week. But he would have lost his skilled occupation and would have to take a light job, such as a ticket collector. After spending years in the railway service in a skilled occupation he may have to take very light grade work, and the difference in wages may be considerable.
As I say, in industry today we have skilled engineers earning£20–£25 per week. As a result of an accident, perhaps losing two or three fingers, the man may no longer be capable of continuing in his very skilled occupation and

have to take on a light labouring job at£10–£12 per week. He may lose£8–£9 per week.
The proposed figure of 46s. does not keep pace with the changing position in industry where wages, particularly for skilled men, have increased; it does not adequately meet the position of loss of earning capacity. With mechanisation in the mining industry today, a skilled collier may earn£20–£25 per week. If as a result of an accident or pneumoconiosis he has to take a light job, he may earn only£10–£11 per week, in some cases the loss may be£8—£9 per week. If we take it at a lower level, it may be£3–£4 per week.
We submit, therefore, that such men should at least be able to have£3 a week for loss of earning capacity. There is a ceiling to this. The amount paid for total incapacity hardship allowance plus disablement pension must not in any event exceed£5 15s. So there is a restriction. We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to agree to a proposition whereby hardship allowance can be paid without restriction.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others have on many occasions heard me talk about the hardship allowance, and so I will not take up more time. But I would just submit that there is considerable justice in our case on this Amendment for a special hardship allowance. Today we have to have in mind skilled men, men who have learned their trade, technicians and scientists, who have gone into these occupations full of ambition after training at technical colleges and elsewhere. Such a man may suffer an accident and be assessed at 10–20 per cent. loss of faculty. The financial loss to such a skilled man may be considerable. Under the Bill the most he can get for loss of earning capacity is£2 6s. We are very moderate in submitting that in present circumstances the hardship allowance should be increased to£3 per week. Also, as I have said, there is a limit to the total amount the man may receive.
These days when we are encouraging young men to undergo technical education and other training, it is not too much for us to be able to tell them "Should you meet with an accident and have to


give up your skilled occupation, there is a guarantee that you can get at least£3 per week." The£2 6s. proposed in the Bill does not meet the present position having regard to the changes which are taking place in industry.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I apologise for intervening, not having taken part in the debates on this Bill before. But the words used by the hon. Member are the very words I myself have used in this House many times, to the derision of hon. Gentlemen on both sides.
Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, which has been so often criticised and yet was one of the best Acts ever passed, with subsequent amendment, the very errors and faults he has complained about were dealt with. [HON. MEMBER: "No:] Yes, they were. Of course, the figures for the olden days were smaller, but if the Act had been continued the figures would have been adjusted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Very often, because of the doctrine of the notional income, men who were partially disabled did not get anything at al.

Mr. Doughty: That is a different position. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are accurate in saying that even though a man has only a small disability he may be unable to carry out a skilled occupation and will suffer a serious loss of earning capacity. But that position was fully covered under the old Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That principle was fully provided for.
When I have raised this principle before, hon. Members on both sides have told me that the present principle is much better. It is that a man with only a very small injury, with very small loss of faculty, gets only a small amount of compensation increase, while there is provision for such things as special hardship allowance. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) suggests that under the present system the man should have loss of faculty taken into account and, in addition, the very considerable advantage given under the old Act. I am astonished that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the very considerable advantages there were under the old

system, which certainly would have provided for the type of hardship to which the hon. Member has referred. He cannot both support the present system, whatever the figures may be, and say that the old system was the right one. I say, and will continue to say, that the old system was the better one.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) to this extent—that the basic principle of compensation under the Industrial Injuries Scheme is loss of faculty and that when this principle was adopted it represented a deliberate shift away from the loss of earnings of the old workmen's compensation. I think that was generally welcomed at the time. In all schemes of this kind there are advantages and disadvantages. Of course, it was recognised at the same time that a fairly minor injury could, in some cases, have a disproportionate effect on earning power and, for that reason, the special hardship allowance was introduced.
But I think the Committee will appreciate that we are put into rather a difficult position if a man with a relatively small injury nevertheless receives the special hardship allowance, bringing him up to the 100 per cent. disablement rate. That is one of the difficulties which arise. The rough percentage for the special hardship allowance has been about 40 per cent. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) might mean that the man would get the full 100 per cent. disablement rate, taking into account his special hardship allowance, even if he had only a 50 per cent. disablement rate. I think that we have to keep the special hardship allowance in line with the general principles of the Act. For that reason I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) is wrong on this issue. When it comes to comparing the old Workmen's Compensation Act with the present Industrial Injuries Scheme, he should read the history of what happened under the old system in the coal mining industry. He would then take a different line from what he did. To try to compare the two schemes shows that the hon. and


learned Gentleman knows nothing about the old one.
The Workmen's Compensation Act was an evil one. It meted out to the men and women of this country an injustice which is unbelievable unless one examines the cases to see what actually happened. To talk about it as a good Act shows that the hon. and learned Gentleman is either blind to the facts, or he does not want to be fair to the employees.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It suited the profession.
Mr. Wainwright: There are only a few people who are better off under the Workmen's Compensation Act than they would have been under the Industrial Injuries Act. Perhaps I might discuss one or two of them with the hon. and learned Gentleman on some other occasion.
If a skilled man in the mines, earning about£25 a week, has the misfortune to lose two phalanges on one hand, his wage drops down to the minimum of about£10 a week. He is unable to do any other job, because in the mining industry it is very important to be able to grasp a thing with both hands. For instance, a

fitter would find it extremely difficult to do his work if he was unable to use both hands. He would probably have to take a lower paid job.

I think that the Minister ought to look at this again. There are men in the mining and other industries who are suffering a loss of about£10 in wages through no fault of their own. If they have been able to obtain damages for the injuries sustained, that is some compensation to them. The man who suffers most is the man who has not been successful in claiming damages.

If we want to encourage boys, and men, to go into the mines, we must give some consideration to the wages they will be able to earn. If they are unfortunate enough to meet with an accident, we must ensure that they are fairly treated. This is the least that we can do. I hope that the Minister will consider this further, because this is extremely important. Every trade unionist in the country is behind us on this issue and I think that the Minister ought to agree to provide something more than is provided in this Bill.

Question put, That "46 shillings" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 148, Noes 113.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[10.54 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)


Aithen, W. T.
du Cann, Edward
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Allason, James
Eden, John
Kirk, Peter


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.


Barter, John
Emery, Peter
Leburn, Gilmour


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Eric
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bidgood, John C.
Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bitten, John
Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Box, Donald
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McLaren, Martin


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bullard, Denys
Gower, Raymond
MeMaster, Stanley R.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Carr, Contpton (Barons Court)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Cleaver, Leonard




Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton


Costain, A. p.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Miscampnell, Norman


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Curran, Charles
Hocking, Philip N.
Neave, Airey


Currie, G. B. H.
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Sir Richard




Pitt, Dame Edith
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Pott, Percivall
Storey, Sir Samuel
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Studholme, Sir Henry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Prior, J. M. L.
Tapsell, Peter
vane, W. M. F.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick


Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Teeling, Sir William
Welle, John (Maidstone)


Rees, Hugh
Temple, John M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Renton, Rt, Hon. David
Thatcher, Mre. Margaret
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thomas, Sir Leslle (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wise, A. R.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Shaw, M.
Thornton-Kemsiey, Sir Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig Sir John
Turner, Colin
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym,




NOES


Abse, Leo
Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman


Awhery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Probert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Harbison, Miss Margaret
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Redhead, E. C


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooson, H. E.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Ross, William


Callaghan, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Short, Edward


Garmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cilffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Dalvell, Tam




Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taverne, D.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W,)


Dempsey, James
Loughlln, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dodds, Norman
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Tomney, Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MaCMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Weltzman, David


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Whltlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Yates, victor (Ladywood)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John



George, L adyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Grey and Dr. Broughton.

11.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, column 4, to leave out "75 shillings" and to insert "90 shillings."
The Amendment deals with the position of the widow who loses her husband through an industrial accident Or an industrial disease. The Bill proposes that she should receive a weekly benefit of 75s. We ask that she should be given a weekly benefit of 90s. There is a sound and logical case for the Amendment. On previous Amendments I said that most of the benefits of those who receive industrial injuries are in line with the benefits of the war disabled.

In arguing the case for the Amendment I compare the widow of a man who loses his life through an industrial accident or an industrial disease with the widow of a man who dies through war service. My understanding is that the widow who loses her husband through war service will receive 90s. a week.
As we have tried with all the other benefits to give to the industrially injured the same amount as is given to the war disabled, the widow of a man who dies as a result of an industrial accident or an industrial disease should be treated in exactly the same way as the widow of a man who loses his life whilst serving in the Forces. The one man loses his


life while serving his country in one of the Services and the other man also loses his life serving his country perhaps working in one of our dangerous industries. It would only be justice to ensure that the widows of these two men receive the same treatment.
It should be remembered that we are not asking for parity in every way because I understand that the war widow gets a higher rate of children's allowance, a rent allowance and, in certain cases, an education allowance. We are merely asking that the industrial injuries widow should receive an equal benefit to that of the widow who has lost her husband through his being on active service.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Successive Governments have accepted the principle of preferential treatment for war pensioners and their widows. The rate has always been substantially higher for those widows. Even when the Industrial Injuries Scheme started in 1948 there was a differential; the industrial injuries widow received 30s. and the war pensioner's widow 35s.
Many war widows are now very advanced in years and it is more appropriate to compare the widows' benefits of the Industrial Injuries and the National Insurance Schemes; and often the borderline between an accident which counts as industrial and one which does not is very narrow indeed. For instance, I have heard the case argued of a policeman who was travelling to his work and received an injury. That is the sort of case I have in mind. Was he on duty while in a vehicle going to his work, or was he not? It all depends on what time in the morning he has to start to get to his place of

duty. That gives an illustration of the sort of narrow margin between these sort of cases in which we have the most difficult task of differentiating.

In view of all these circumstances, it would be wise to leave this small differentiation as it is. Any alteration in matters like this are always liable to upset the balance in other directions. I must, therefore, recommend to the Committee to oppose the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: The Minister says that the proper comparison is that of the industrially injured and the widow of the man who dies from natural causes, but he cannot ride off with that comparison. The industrial injuries benefit is not relevant to that of the man who gets his benefit through sickness, but is to the man who gets his benefit because he is war disabled. That is the proper comparison. We have other Amendments to move and, because of the time factor, we cannot deal with this matter as fully as we would have liked.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If I made the hon. Lady think that, then that was certainly not my intention. I was trying to point out that there is a closer parallel between the industrial injuries widow and the National Insurance widow than there is between the industrial injuries widow and the war pensioner's widow.

Miss Herbison: That was the point I was trying to take up.

Question put, That "75 shillings" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 96.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, John


Altken, W. T.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James
Clarke, Brig, Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Cleaver, Leonard
Emery, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bidgood, John C.
Costain, A, P.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Biffen, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gammans, Lady


Bigga-Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Goodhart, Philip


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gower, Raymond


Box, Donald
Deeds, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Green, Alan


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gresham Cooke, R.


Braine, Bernard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Doughty, Charles
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, John (Walthamatow, E.)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
du Cann, Edward
Hastings, Stephen




Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, J. E B. (S. Norfolk)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'eh'st'r Moss Side)


Hocking, Philip N.
Miscampbell, Norman
Teeling, Sir William


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Neave, Alrey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Panneii, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Peel, John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Percival, lan
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kirk, Peter
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turner, Colin


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pitt, Dame Edith
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Leavey, J. A.
Pott, percivall
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Leburn, Gilmour
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


LinBtead, Sir Hugh
Prior, J. M. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Loveys, Walter H.
Pym, Francis
Wall, Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Reos, Hugh
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wise, A. R.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Woollam, John


Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Shaw, M.
Worsley, Marcus


Marten, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.



Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'fd &amp; Chiswick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Storey, Sir Samuel
Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Peart, Frederick


Ainsley, William
Gourlay, Harry
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Prohert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Boardman, H.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holman, Percy
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holt, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hooson, H. E.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, James
Houghton, Douglas
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Charies A. (Perry Barr)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Snriggs, Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gollick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taverne, D.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford. S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Thomas, lorwertti (Rhondda, W.)


Daiyell, Tam
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Warbey, William


Dodde, Norman
McCann, John
Weitzman, David


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Whitlock, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, Archie
Wilkine, W. A.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Willie, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Woof, Robert


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.



Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Ifor Dayies and Mr. Grey.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. B. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end to insert:

Section 19 (3)
…
Weekly rate of pension payable to a widow in cases other than those provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of that subsection.
20 shillings.
40 shillings.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It will be convenient to dis-

Section 22 (4)
…
Weekly rate of pension payable to a parent—






(a) for period for which parents are living together and are both entitled to pension.
15 shillings.
30 shillings.




(b) for any other period
20 shillings.
40 shillings.


Section 23 (4)
…
 Gratuity and weekly rate of pension payable to a relative—






(a) weekly rate of pension payable in circumstances specified in the subsection (2) of this section,
20 shillings.
40 shillings.




(b) amount of gratuity payable under ubsection (3) of this section,
52 pounds.
104 pounds.




(c) weekly rate of allowance payable under subsection (3) of this section.
36 shillings.
72 shillings.


Section 24 (3)
…
Weekly rate of allowance payable to women having care of a deceased's child.
20 shillings.
40 shillings.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Sir Robert.
The two Amendments relate to industrial injury scheme beneficiaries who have lost either a husband, a son or a daughter. It is well known that these benefits can be paid to some beneficiaries in the form of a pension or to others as a gratuity. One significant feature is that the benefits paid to these people have not been increased since the inception of the scheme in 1948, although there have been many increases in all the other benefits during the past 15 years.
The first class of people affected by the Amendments are parents who have lost a son or daughter as a result of a fatal accident. As the son or daughter was the supporter of the home, the parents have received either a pension or a gratuity. Another class of beneficiary is the wife who loses her husband. This industrial injury widow, like the 10s. widow under the National Insurance Act, has had no increase in benefit since 1948.
The value of money has changed during the last 14 or 15 years and, if for no other reason, there is substance in the argument that these benefits should be raised. Nobody, on either side, can argue that the 20s. paid to the widow under the age of 40 has the same value today as it had in 1948. Neither does the 15s. or 20s. pension to parents, nor the£52 gratuity, have the same value as when first granted.
The Minister has been forthcoming and generous today concerning the old compensation cases and I hope that he will be equally forthcoming and generous towards these beneficiaries. Let us not hide the fact that although, during the past 15 years, all other beneficiaries have had their benefits increased, these beneficiaries

cuss also the Amendment in page 16, line 29, at end insert:

have been forgotten. I hope that we will remedy that position and that the Minister will say clearly and candidly that it is time to do something to increase the benefits for these people.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The first of the two Amendments would double the 20s. pension payable to the young, childless, able-bodied industrial injuries widow. No change in this rate is proposed in the Bill. The Industrial Injury Scheme provides a pension of 64s., to be increased under the Bill to 75s., for the widow who is over 50 when widowed or has a child or is for health reasons incapable of self-support. This is in accordance with modern ideas as to the appropriate provision for widows, but the younger, childless, able-bodied widow can and does earn her living. In this context the 20s. pension is somewhat of an anomaly. It is not, of course, a subsistence benefit; it was provided in the 1946 Act partly as a replacement of the£400 lump sum payable under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and partly as compensation in the same analogy as war pensions which make provision for a 20s. rate for the similar young widow of a Service man.
This rate has never been increased, but, even so, the actuarial value of the 20s. pension is at present estimated to be£800 for a woman widowed at the age of 49. The war pension's 20s. rate is not being increased and has remained unchanged since 1919. Any increase in this rate for the industrial injuries widow would bring it into contrast to the corresponding widows under the main National Insurance Act who receive nothing if they have no underlying title to a 10s. pension. When I say that they receive nothing, I mean, of course, at a comparable age and with comparable status.
Moving now to the second Amendment, what it proposes would double present rates of industrial death benefit payable to parents, relatives and women having care of a deceased person's children. No change is provided in the rate of these benefits under the Bill. There is a similarity between this Amendment and that connected with the 20s. young widow's pension with which I have just dealt. Entitlement to the benefits depends principally on the ex tent of maintenance by the deceased man.
The relatives allowance under Section 23 (4, e) is payable only for thirteen weeks. This Amendment overlooks the parent's gratuity payable in certain circumstances where the parent fails to qualify for a pension for which the maximum is£52. The rates of these benefits, like the 20s. rate of Industrial widow's benefit, have never been altered since the inception of the Industrial Injuries Scheme. They were never intended to be subsistence payments, but, again, derive from the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and certain provisions of the War Pensions Scheme which originated long before there was a comprehensive scheme of social insurance in this country.

Mr. Finch: I must put this to the Minister. For relatives of parents who have lost a son there has been no increase in the gratuity or pension since 1948—parents who have lost a boy on whom they are partly dependent, a matter which was recognised under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts for many years. It was put into the Industrial Injuries Act. I cannot see the justification, in the case of parents and relatives, for that payment remaining as it has been since 1948. Some consideration should be given to parents who lose a son, having regard to increased costs and changes that have taken place since 1948.

11.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Indeed, I recognise that fact, up to a point, but I do not think that that justifies the raising of the allowance under the present conditions. We are trying here to preserve differentials and balances which have been built up in this scheme, and to make alterations of the sort proposed in the Amendment would tend to put the scheme out of balance, cause further anomalies, and, in due course, lead to further dissatisfaction in other directions.

Mr. B. Taylor: On this question of differentials, as all the benefits, with these exceptions, have been increased since 1948, the differential today is much wider than it was in 1948. The Parliamentary Secretary has put forward a good case for accepting the proposed increase.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. These rates have never been recognised to be anywhere near subsistence level; they were in some degree making up for the compensation that was there under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about subsistence. There was a measure of dependency and the benefits were granted not on the grounds of subsistence but on grounds of dependency.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Naturally, they are dependency allowances. Their very name means that. But that does not necessarily mean that they should be raised under a rates Bill of this nature. These are, as I have said, a left-over from the old Workmen's Compensation Act, and therefore we should not, in a Bill of this nature, be concerned with raising these levels.

Miss Herbison: If we should not be concerned about this matter in a Bill of this sort, where should we be concerned about it? Is the Minister telling us that perhaps in some other Bill we might raise this matter, or is he telling us that because these are left-overs, as he calls them, never at any time in the future can these dependants' allowances be increased? The very name "dependants' allowances" indicates that they were given to help dependants—not to keep them fully, of course, but to help them. If this amount was considered necessary in 1948, surely in all justice the increased sum for which we are now asking would only be the equivalent—if it is even that—of what was granted in 1948.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Lady, as always, is very eloquent in support of her case, but I still cannot accept this Amendment. I will make the same argument again. I cannot put it any plainer than I have done already. Here


are dependants' allowances which were made in 1948 as some compensation for what was being lost under the old Workmen's Compensation Act which was then to be repealed. The level then was considered to be a help. It was not considered to be subsistence. It was not considered to be based on any other figure; it was given as a help for these dependants, parents and other relatives.
Admittedly, one can suggest any figure that is considered to be a help to unfortunate people in these circumstances, but I must insist that this is not the proper course to take in this Bill. It is irrelevant to the Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. J. Griffiths rose—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If I may be permitted to continue, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute. If hon. Members opposite feel as strongly as this about it, there are, as they know ample opportunities by Private Member's Bill procedure to bring forward a Measure of this nature which stands on its own, and that could be dealt with at the appropriate time and place. But I must insist that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I regret very much that the Minister has used such words. I believe he will regret them when he ponders on them.
The point is that where a man or woman met with a fatal accident arising out of employment and there was a dependency, the dependency was always recognised as a matter of principle under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. It was never our intention—it was never mine—that the Industrial Injuries Scheme, to which for the first time workers were contributing, should be less favourable than the workmen's compensation procedure.
What is being said today is that if a parent loses a son, the amount of the dependency is exactly what it was in 1948. But everybody knows that that is not so. One measures dependency by relation to the standard of living. What does the loss of a son represent to a parent so far as it can be measured in money? If it was assessed as£52 in 1948, what should it be in 1963? It should not be£52 surely. The question is: If in 1948 in certain dependency cases the appro-

priate amount was judged to be£52, should we expect it to be the same amount today? I am sure the Minister would not want to say "Yes" to that.
I do not favour doing this by means of a Private Member's Bill or a Ten-Minutes Bill. If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment—I am sorry he cannot—why should he ask us to do what we want in some other way? He has the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, I should be disappointed—indeed, I should be absolutely shocked—if that Council, composed of men drawn from both sides of industry, and knowing that the principle of dependency is accepted, said there should be no change from the 1948 assessment. I ask the Minister to do what the Act provides for; I urge him to ask the Advisory Council as soon as possible whether, on the basis of its experience, whether we ought not to change the amount since the principle is accepted.

Mr. B. Taylor: As the Minister has said that this is not the appropriate way to do what we seek to do and that the best method would be to put forward a Private Member's Bill, will he give an undertaking that such a Bill would be accepted by the Government?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Naturally, I can give no undertaking about a hypothetical Bill. Hon. Members, as hon. Gentlemen well know, have to take their chance in this House. But I wish the hon. Member luck with his chance.
With regard to what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, naturally I take note of it. I will inform my right hon. Friend of what he has said, and I am sure that he will take note of it.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made two points, neither of which is relevant to our present discussion. I was amazed to hear him make them. First, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we should not ask for a subsistence level for this payment. But no one has asked for it.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I do not think I said hon. Members should not ask for a subsistence level. What I intended to say, at any rate, was that this allowance never was, nor was intended to be, at subsistence level.

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, did not refer to that at all. We are asking the Government to have regard to two important principles. The first is that the Government should reconsider these amounts in view of the increases in other benefits and allowances and the fall in the value of money. The second concerns this legislation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Private Members' legislation. But we are dealing now with a Government Bill, and it is the doctrine of the House of Commons that it is the Government's duty to bring in legislation on these matters.
I was a member of a deputation which saw the present Minister's predecessor to discuss legislation on this matter. He told us, "I have to take my place in the queue. I have to fight for new legislation and only very rarely will the powers-that-be let me introduce such legislation." Now we have our opportunity, yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings up the extraordinary argument that this is not the time and place. Lt is absurd. The best thing he can do is agree to reconsider and ask the Government to accept the principle behind the Amendment.

Mr. Doughty: The Government will do nothing of the sort. Right hon. and hon. Members are wrong in saying this was left over from the old Workmen's Compensation Act. [Interruption.] I know they do not like this, but they cannot have it both ways. This was the kind of thing left over from the old Act so as not to be too harsh in the transitional period, and it has remained a long time. If we are to have compensation, as under the present legislation, for loss of faculty, then let us forget about loss of earning power and dependency and matters of that sort, which are out of date.
This provision was merely a transitory scheme brought in in 1947 and 1948, and it has remained for a long time in the transitory stage. It should not, therefore, necessarily be part of this legislation and increased pail passu. I hope the Government will reject the Amendment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is a complete mistake to say that this was a transitional provision. It was a permanent provision.

Mr. Wainwright: It is important that we should understand what happened in the past and what is happening now. Probably hon. Members opposite cannot appreciate the position that might exist in a working class home. I am not saying that in any spirit of animosity about the difference in standards between the two sides of this Committee, because those standards do not vary as much as some people think. But in certain instances they vary greatly.
When a boy or girl in a working class home dies, a contribution to the household is suddenly taken away. This does not have the impact on middle class or upper class homes as it does on working class homes. I detest using these terms, but they do describe the different stratas of our society. In such circumstances, there is a huge drop in the household income in a working class family and it was because of this that this provision was brought in. In many working class homes the father, through age or sickness or injury is not making as big a contribution to the income as he once did. It is important, therefore, that consideration should be given to the decreased contribution to the household income, and as the Minister has promised to look at again at an earlier Amendment he should undertake to look at this one too.
11.45 p.m.
Because of the blunt "No" that we have had on so many occasions, I do not expect the Minister to promise to look favourably at this Amendment, but I hope that he will at least promise to look at it again to see whether the Government can do something to improve the position instead of suggesting that this matter should be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill. This is too important an issue to be dealt with in that way, and I repeat that I hope the Minister will look at this again.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Since the return of my right hon. Friend into the Chamber I have naturally had a few words with him. He has heard what has been suggested, that this matter should be referred to the Advisory Council. That will be done, and of course we shall look at it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that we only look at these things when


a Bill is on passage through the House. As the right hon. Member for Llanelly must know from his long experience, the Ministry is continuously looking at and reviewing these matters, and we shall see that it continues to do so.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I thank the Minister very much.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 4.—(COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, after "appoint", to insert:
not being later than 1st February 1963 in the case of Section 1 (3) and (4), Schedule 2 and Schedule 3, Part II".
This is the last Amendment on the Notice Paper, and it is one of great importance. This Schedule empowers the Minister to fix a date by Order on which benefits under this Bill are to come into operation. He is allowed to appoint different days for different purposes. He is in fact given considerable room for manoeuvre of effective dates for the various benefits under the Bill.
The Minister has told us that subject to the passage of the Bill through the House he is proposing to introduce the increased benefits for unemployment and sickness on 7th March, and the rest of the benefits—retirement pensions mostly of course—on 27th May. The Minister has declared his intention of how he will use the powers given to him in the first paragraph of this Schedule. The Amendment proposes to restrict the freedom of movement of the Minister by providing that the date he shall fix under this Schedule shall be not later than 1st February in the case of the various benefits referred to in the Amendment.
The Question is, how long do we have to wait to get the money? There has been a good deal of feeling expressed on this all over the country. This Amendment really is for the prevention of cruelty to retirement pensioners, widows, the unemployed, and the sick, because they are to be kept waiting weeks, or in some cases several months, for the benefits which this Bill will bring.
I know of very few occasions on which, when improvements in conditions are

agreed, there is not some measure of retrospection by agreement, and if a forward date is fixed, that is aways by agreement. In this case the Committee is asked to impose on the beneficiaries a waiting date to which it does assent, and which in our view is not justified. It is intolerable when the Government announce increases in benefits and people are kept waiting for so long to feel the benefit of them. We all agree that when a decision is taken to do something, especially something of this kind, speed is of the essence. We should like to bring the money to these people within a matter of days, not weeks or months after the announcement was made.
Does the Minister question the merits of the case for immediate payment? He is not taking a decision to pay on conditions in the future; his decision is on conditions as they are when he decides to make the payment. I have never heard a Minister say in regard to paying benefits that the forward date is part of the bargain. The forward date may be a part of the bargain in a wages settlement in the same way as a retrospective settlement may be a part of the bargain. I have never heard a Minister say, "We are going to give them something, but we don't think they are entitled to it just yet, so we shall keep them waiting far the money." I have never heard a Minister say, "Although I am announcing an increase now, the case for it is so largely a matter of discretion that we are justified in delaying the operation of the increase."
I have not heard a Minister say any of those things; what I have heard is about the difficulties of administration. I presume that if administration permitted the Minister to bring the increases into effect immediately after his announcement, as in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget Day he would say, "These are to take effect from 6 o'clock tonight," or from tomorrow, or next week—something bearing a close relationship to his announcement. In this case administration is always the Minister's explanation why he cannot bring relief earlier than the date specified far the operation of the new benefits.
What is the difficulty of administration? Order books, mechanisation, clerking, calculations and clerical work


connected with getting this enormous operation launched? While acknowledging that all that has to be gone through, does it really affect the date upon which the benefits could start? Surely it would be possible to issue with the order books vouchers for the arrears in each case, which could be paid out at the time the increases come into operation? Is there any real administrative difficulty or is the Minister reluctant to do it until he can get the contributions, get the new stamps printed and all that sort of thing?
The Minister should be absolutely frank with the Committee on the question of the effective date. Every newspaper and every letter which hon. Members receive says, "Why have we to wait t, why can't this be done more promptly? Look at the gap between the announcement of the increases and the date when people will get the benefit." It could be argued, although it would be callous to do so, that these people do not need the money to live on because they are living without it. They do not need it to get them through the blizzard because they are getting through without it. No Minister would be so callous as to say that. Retrospective payment would be a great boon to these people. It would enable them to make purchases of domestic goods to meet needs which probably remain unsatisfied. There is more in life than buying the bread and the butter. Clothing, blankets, domestic appliances of one kind or another, would be more easily obtained if there was a degree of back pay.
Why should the retirement pensioner be the only person in Britain who never gets any back pay, because that is what it amounts to? I am as conscious as anyone of administration and all its difficulties. I am constantly reminding hon. Members on both sides in other connections of problems of administration, but there are times when they must be overcome. In these days there is more machinery for overcoming them than ever before. We all know that the graduated pensions scheme would have been impossible without electronic computers and such aids. The amount of clerical work involved would have been beyond the capacity of the Department. There would have been no means of storing up records. Cards with the graduated deductions on are being microfilmed. All this para-

phernalia is going on up at Newcastle at present. There is a giant computer up there absolutely spewing out the chits which we are now receiving telling us how many stamps we have to our credit. There is simultaneous printing of the chit, the name and the number. This is one of the wonders of the Ministry. The Ministry is so proud of it that people come from all over the world to look at it.
Yet we are told that these benefits cannot be paid out before 27th May, because the difficulties of administration cannot be overcome. This is fantastic. The difficulties involved here are chicken feed compared with the graduated pensions scheme which the Ministry is tackling at Newcastle at present. The Ministry has taken on several thousands of extra staff—clerical officers, higher executive officers, senior executive officers—who are all poring over the graduated pensions scheme. But the Ministry wants three months to do this job. The Minister is a new broom who is obviously going to sweep clean. He has already done two things which we did not expect. This is an opportunity for him to see what the problem is of bringing the payments to the recipients more promptly.
The Minister is bringing forward the date for payment of unemployment and sickness benefit. He is doing this partly because he is under pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the Cabinet as a whole. He has been told, "Get the money out, Minister. We want money in the hands of the unemployed especially, because unemployment is affecting particular areas. We do not want them to have to wait. We want to bring more money to the unemployed. There are too many of them for our political comfort, so let us get on with it".
The Minister has been able to bring the date forward for those benefits because, as he said the other day, he is not encumbered with the order book problem in connection with unemployment and sickness benefit to anything like the extent he is in connection with retirement pensions and health benefits. I believe that there are order books for some forms of sickness benefit, particularly thirteen week order books, but order books are certainly necessary for all retirement pensions. These order books


are only a sort of postal order, books which are put in the hands of the pensioners, which they cash on the due dates at the local Post Office. Is it beyond the capacity of the Department either to get the order books out earlier or, if not, to provide something in the order books which will enable the pensioners to draw the arrears of pay?

Mr. Macpherson: It is not a question of getting them out. It is a question of getting them in.

Mr. Houghton: Getting them in where?

Mr. Macpherson: In, in order to change them.

Mr. Houghton: The Minister means the printing.

Mr. Macpherson: No. Order books valid for a whole year are sent out throughout the year in batches of a week at a time. The whole system is worked on that basis. To change them over, they have all got to be brought in, to the local offices on this occasion, and over-stamped. That is done over a period of weeks.

12 m.

Mr. Houghton: Then the Ministry can stick an extra page in stating the arrears. I do not see what the difficulty is. The right hon. Gentleman may have to get them in, but when he has got them in and overstamped them can he not insert in them something which will entitle the people concerned to the arrears?

Mr. Macpherson: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but the trouble is that he has been arguing along one line and has been asking why we cannot make the payments sooner. He has suddenly changed his ground and is asking why we cannot put.in something to deal with the arrears. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Houghton: The Minister said earlier that he had to do two things at the same time. That is all I am doing. If he cannot get the books out earlier then there must be some back pay, probably more for some than for others. I think the best way out of this difficulty would be for the Minister to come along with all the equipment in his hands and

tell us just what are his difficulties. There are plenty of hon. Members with experience of these matters who could advise him and overcome those difficulties.
However, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to pay out another penny in advance of the increased contributions. We are well aware of his difficulties in regard to new stamps, and so on, but there would be nothing to stop him drawing on the National Insurance or Reserve Funds to tide him over, especially for a special occasion like this. I can assure him that there is strong feeling in the country on this matter. It baffles the man in the street why, in this day and age, it is impossible, for administrative reasons, for him to get the money in the hands of the people sooner.
The people concerned will certainly not view with any degree of patience the kind of explanation the Minister is giving. It was pointed out earlier that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once said. "If something is difficult it can be done at once, if it is impossible it may take a day or two longer." It should not take the Minister more than a day or two to get over the difficulties surrounding this matter.
The Amendment would fix the operative date at 1st February, and no later. If that were accepted by the Committee the right hon. Gentleman would have to find ways and means of overcoming his difficulties. The right hon. Member for Woodford is also reputed to have said to some of his officials, "Take it away and do it; and I do not want to hear about your difficulties." The same applies in this case. If 1st February is made the date we can say to the Minister, "We do not want to hear any more about your difficulties." We have before us the final opportunity in our discussions on the Bill for the Minister to show that although "Super Mac" may have gone out of the Government, a super Minister of Pensions has come in.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I support the Amendment. Clearly the ideal solution is for the payments to be made as quickly as possibile. It is a refined form of cruelty for us to say to people who are hungry—extra hungry because of the cold weather, shivering in front of inadequate fires in below freezing temperatures and in need of warmer


clothing to keep out the north wind—that the additional money cannot be made available to them sooner.
It is clear from what the Minister has said that we are going to be treated tonight to a long list of administrative difficulties about getting these payments made earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has dealt effectively with some of them. I want some better reasons than we have yet been given why we cannot make the payments retrospective as soon as the administrative arrangements have been made.
One of the purposes of the Amendment is to make 1st February the operative date for entitlement to payment. It is then up to the Ministry to put the actual payments into effect as soon.as possible—and I suggest that if the entitlement date were taken back to 1st February, some of the administrative difficulties about making the actual payments earlier than May would be discovered miraculously to have melted away. This argument about administrative difficulties is often used simply because the Government do not want the entitlement to operate earlier, so this would be a very good spur to those responsible for putting the administration into effect.
When I and some of my hon. Friends asked on Second Reading why, at any rate, the old-age pensioners should not get a lump sum payment of the arrears to 1st February, we got two conflicting answers—first, from the Minister and then from the Parliamentary Secretary. I remember interrupting the Minister quite early in his speech to ask whether the old-age pensioners could be paid retrospectively when the necessary administrative arrangements had been made. His reply was:
No. We have considered the dates very carefully indeed and I do not think that it would be proper to pay a pension of this kind retrospectively. Pensions are, after all, payable from week to week. I do not think that it would be proper to pay what would be a lump sum retrospectively in that way."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 606.]
That was an objection on principle. But when, at the end of the debate, I interrupted the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary on exactly the same point, I got a different answer. When I asked

whether the payment could be made retrospectively, she said, rather tartly:
Certainly not, because we should have to keep account throughout the whole of the interim period of the precise amount paid out in each week and the orders, in the meantime, would have been cashed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 703.]
I must admit that that was a piece of scientific jargon that completely dazzled me. I sat back, and thought "There must be some meaning behind that—but I'm dashed if I can find it." Of course, the orders would have been cashed in the meantime; what are these people exepcted to do in the interim—live on air? Frankly, I am at a loss to understand the meaning of those words. But I want to have one thing made quite clear: do the Government intend to oppose this Amendment on grounds of principle or on grounds of administration? Let them have the honesty and the decency to make that clear. The Minister opposed the idea on grounds of principle, and then the hon. Lady was brought in to find an administrative fig leaf for the nakedness of his inhumanity.
The arguments may he administrative ones. Clearly, the administrative considerations will vary according to the nature of the benefit. The Minister has already said that it is different if there is an order book rather than a claim for unemployment or sickness benefit. All right—do not let us have an omnibus administrative reply to a problem which differs in its administrative nature from one class of beneficiary to another.
I do not in any way underestimate the needs and difficulties of the unemployed or the sick, but I do suggest that in those cases the administrative difficulties involved in making a retrospective payment are much less than in the other case because, quite clearly, in the case of old retired people, there are not the complications created by the presence of dependants, some of whom might have grown up in the interim period. The calculations, therefore, are bound to be much simpler, because there is no dramatic change in circumstances from week to week for an old person who has retired. The only change of circumstances likely to occur in that case is death. Therefore, I should have thought that the administration was simple.
I cannot see why the overall 10s. increase should not be given in a lump sum anyway. We are told that a small minority might have a little less than the standard pension because there is a contribution or two short, but the overwhelming majority will be clearly on standard rates and they have no dependants to complicate the situation. I wonder whether the real reason is that the increase in the scales of National Assistance is lower than the increase in the old-age pension and that it is the supplementation factor that is complicating matters here. But if we had had an increase in the National Assistance scale identical with that which there is to be in the basic pension that need not have bothered us, because we could have made the National Assistance increase retrospective too and we should have a very simple situation to deal with.
I admit that when we give the old-age pensioner 10s. with one hand and take back 4s. with the other, because he is on National Assistance, we get into complicated administrative waters. It only goes to show that crime is its own penalty. I hope that the Government will not urge that complication as an excuse. There are old people who are outraged by the fact that their right to this increase is recognised now but they are not to get it until the winter ends. It would certainly warm them as they sit by their half-empty grates, waiting for the fuel allowance from the National Assistance Board which never comes, to know that at any rate in May they would get a lump sum which would enable them to have a sense of expansion and warmth and hope which they have never had hitherto. This is why I support the Amendment.

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) have given me a formidable task in replying on two different bases to the Amendment. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thought that I had dealt with her tartly. There was no intention to do so, but I might have been following her example when she interrupted me on that occasion.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Sowerby that never before in National Insurance have we had retrospective increases. There would perhaps have been one case when such retrospection was most urgent on the ground of hardship.
That was the time when five months elapsed between the announcement of the increases and the implementation of the benefit. During those five months the cost of living rose very substantially—by 6·8 per cent. I refer, of course, to 1951. There was no question then of retrospection, even though between that increase and the last increase there had been a very sharp fall in the value of money and over the five months period there was a sharper fall than there has been this time between the announcement of the increases and their operative date.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Houghton: Which shows how long the Ministry's officials have been bossing the Minister about.

Mrs. Thatcher: Nonsense. The hon. Member will forgive me if occasionally I say "Nonsense" to him; I am sure he will take it in the right spirit. Nevertheless, I meant it.
On this occasion, my right hon. Friend objected to the proposal on grounds of principle, saying that the National Insurance Fund is for benefits on a week-to-week basis and is not suitable for sudden lump sum payments. There may be overriding factors which for the time being outweigh that argument, but on this occasion we do not think that there are overriding factors on grounds of principle.
That brings us back to the administrative arguments, which are formidable. My right hon. Friend is doing an extremely good job, with the co-operation of the House of Commons, in getting the increases through in one of the shortest times, bearing in mind that the number of pensioners—6½million—is more than ever before. Except for one occasion when there were not nearly as many beneficiaries, this is the shortest time in which the operation has ever been completed, assuming that the Bill is passed in time for the dates we propose to be honoured.
That is no small feat. It can only be done by working to the maximum the local offices who have to carry it out. If we took them off this operation, we could not introduce the increases on 27th May for the long-term benefits or on 7th March for the short-term ones. We have done our best by separating the two short-term benefits—unemployment and sickness—from the long-term benefits. Once


we take people off the job of uprating, which they have to do on an individual basis of contributors' records, we cannot get the increases through in time.
If, as the Amendment requires, we made the increases payable from 1st February, when we have completed the uprating operation from the dates announced by my right hon. Friend we should have to go back over the records and payments week by week of 8¼million beneficiaries, some of whom had gone out of benefit. For example, a large number of those unemployed would no longer be in benefit and would be in work and a large number of the sick would have returned to work. Thus we would be dealing not only with people who were in benefit when the retrospective increases were given, but with people who had gone out of benefit. Unemployment benefit is dealt with not through our offices, but through the employment exchanges. We would have to start that on 27th May. It would be a colossal operation to go back over every payment made week by week and it would occupy several weeks. The lump sums would not be available until long after 27th May and they would not go to people who had been sick or unemployed until long after their return to work.
I am sorry to give a catalogue of difficulties, but there is probably no similar scheme in the world which pays benefit, as we do, on a weekly basis and which operates such a magnificent administrative system with so little going wrong. We should pay tribute to it now and then. Even retirement pension benefits can vary from week to week. They can vary with earnings or with hospital inpatient reductions. It is not, therefore, simply a matter of giving a specific increase over the whole period. It would have to be done by checking week by week.
I assure the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn that we have considered the matter carefully on grounds of both principle and practice. We consider that the Department has done, and will be doing, an excellent job to make the increases available from the dates announced. I hope therefore, that on this occasion the Opposition will be satisfied.

Mrs. Castle: Before the hon. Lady sits down, would she admit that the large number of difficulties to which she has referred do not apply to retirement pensioners? The fact that the unemployed person might be back at work or that the sick person may be well again would not apply to the retirement pensioners who are in a continuing position interrupted only by death.

Mrs. Thatcher: Some people would come into benefit during that period. The week by week variation in payment applies to a considerable number of retirement pensioners—that is, the variation in what they are getting. We have nearly 150 rates of retirement pension, so that of itself is a very large factor to consider.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I do not think that the Committee can accept the explanation given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. She talks about this gigantic task of having to deal with 6½million people. As she knows, it is very doubtful whether there are more than 1 million of these 6½million to whom the regular benefits would not be paid. Most of these 6½million people—at least 5 million of them—will get this increase, and get it retrospectively, because they are not the people who will have been unemployed or sick merely during the period which the hon. Lady mentioned.
The hon. Lady said that it had never been done before and advanced that as an argument why it should not be done now. But that is what this House of Commons is for. It is to do things which have never been done before. Quite frankly, it astounds me that any hon. Member, any Parliamentary Secretary or any Minister can pretend that this is such a colossal job that it is just beyond the capacity of the machine to do it.
I will put to the Committee one point to bear out what I am saying. Very recently the Home Secretary sent to the clerk of every council throughout the country instructions about evacuation in the event of war. According to the plans drawn up by the Home Office, there will be millions of people to be evacuated should war come. Millions of children will be involved, and the people to whose houses these children are sent will be entitled to some payment from the Government for receiving the children into their care.
Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary really saying that the people to whose homes in, say, Devon to which children from, perhaps, Bristol will be evacuated will have to wait weeks and weeks for the payment which the Government will make to them for receiving the children? Or is the hon. Lady advancing the argument that if tomorrow the Government and the country were faced with a military crisis which involved the calling up of some 2 million or 3 million National Service men who still have reserve obligations that the wives and children of those men would not be entitled to any payment for weeks and weeks because of the impossibility of settling the individual claims?

Mrs. Thatcher: I was talking about neither of those circumstances but about the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Funds.

Mr. Fernyhough: Of course, but what we are dealing with is the capacity of the administrative machine to get money to people desperately in need of it in the circumstances which I have outlined. It is unquestionably true that the administrative machine would find the means of getting the money to the wives of Service men who had been called up and to the people who were receiving the evacuated children into their homes. If it did not, what would happen? One can imagine what would happen if 2 million ex-Service men were called up and their wives and children did not receive their allowance books for some weeks. Hon. Members would be inundated with letters demanding that the Government should speed up the distribution of the money to these people.
What the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is saying is, "We must not ask the Civil Service to work overtime. Their hours from 9 till 5 must not be interfered with." I am sure that if the civil servants who have to do this job were asked to put their backs into it and stay behind to make up the books so that these people could get the money, there would be very few who would not realise how much humanity was involved and be prepared to do the work.
I was a trade union official and very often I negotiated wages, as some of my hon. Friends did, for thousands of people. Sometimes we negotiated retro-

spective pay to a date much earlier than the date on which we finalised the agreement. The employers never found even half the snags and difficulties in granting retrospective pay that the Government, with all their facilities and machinery at their disposal, are pretending exist. If the will were there, this could be done. If we were faced with a national crisis in which we had to bring succour to millions of people, it would be done. The truth is that the Ministry does not think that this is a really urgent matter. It knows that by postponing payment it is saving money, and they are doing this at the expense of the most unfortunate sections of our community.
I hope hon. Members will not be satisfied. I hope they will rise in their seats and demand, on behalf of the sick, unemployed and aged in their constituencies, that the Ministry faces its responsibility, does the decent thing and ensures that these books are printed—for it is only a question of printing books in the last analysis—and given to the people concerned so that they may be paid much earlier. This is something to which they are entitled, as every decent minded citizen will agree, having regard to the sort of weather which we have been experiencing.

Miss Herbison: We would not have had this debate had the Government made their decision in time to raise sickness and unemployment benefits, and particularly the benefits for our old people. Had they made that decision in time so that these increases could have been paid to our old people during the winter, I am certain that this sort of Amendment need not have been moved.
The trouble is that the Government did not make this decision until a short time ago, and now the old people, who have experienced the worst winter in living memory, are being told that there is no possible way of their getting relief until 27th May. I do not minimise the administrative difficulties, but I am certain that the main reason for these old people not getting their benefit till 27th May is that the Government wish to make the payment at about the same time as they get the additional contributions. In other words, this decision and the decision not to accept the Amendment are much more matters of finance rather than of administration.
12.30 a.m.
I notice the Parliamentary Secretary shaking her head as if to say that that is not so. If she really means it, and if the Minister agrees with her, I shall put certain propositions to her. If there are administrative difficulties and it is not humanly possible to make the payment before 27th May, would it be possible administratively to give the old people, if not the others, not only their increased weekly benefit but a lump sum benefit on 27th May? That is my first proposition.
If I am told that even in the case of the old, retired people that is not possible and that it will take the energy, imagination and wit of the Government and the Civil Service administrative staff.to make the payment by 27th May, I make a second proposition. These old people are always needing help. With a lump sum they could replace some of the things in their homes which they find it impossible to do at present. If the difficulty is administrative and not financial, why cannot the few weeks after 27th May be used to work out the amount of the retrospective payments, and why cannot these be given to the old people even after 27th May so that they might be able to buy an extra pair of blankets for next winter and not have to advertise for people to give up their old ones, or so that they might be able to buy a bright new curtain for their home? Just think what the old people could do with a lump sum of a few pounds! If there is no financial difficulty, I cannot see any other reason why the Government should not accept my second proposition and give the people the money even if it is a few weeks after 27th May.
My last point would be to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I am never the least bit impressed when a Minister tells me "This was never done before". I would hope that we are a forward-looking nation and that we are forward-looking people in this Committee. We should never be hindered by the bogeyman "We have never done it before". That is no reason. It is an alibi, an excuse.
I repeat: if the Minister cannot, because of administrative reasons, make this payment before 27th May, will he consider giving it to the old people and the

others as soon as the amounts that they should get are worked out after 27th May?

Mr. N. Macpherson: I have every sympathy, of course, with the average reaction of almost everybody when time and again announcements are made about increases in the rates. The immediate reaction is to say, "But it is an awfully long time for these people to have to wait." That is one of the reasons why I went into this most carefully; and we have managed to reduce the time.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Lady said they were never impressed with the argument that something had never been done before. But surely there must be a very good argument indeed for doing it now, an overwhelming argument in a case like this. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he should be careful about the way in which he casts reflection on the civil servants. This operation could not possibly be done without the maximum amount of overtime by people willing to make the maximum effort in order to get these rates into force as soon as possible.
I am bound to say that I am sorry he suggested that this was being carried out in an "easy-osey" way, with no overtime. That is not so. This is only being done in the time laid down because of very great efforts by the civil servants. They are doing the job in a very short time indeed. War pensions have to be dealt with as well by the local offices. Between now and 7th March, they are going to be fully occupied with unemployment and sickness benefits and the associated war pension benefits, and after that they will be dealing with the main war pensions and insurance pensions. It would not be possible to make payments from 27th May if we were to lay another responsibility on them. The whole thing would have to be delayed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman please say how, in the name of fortune, the Home Office is able to make payments if his substantial machinery cannot do this job?

Mr. Macpherson: What the hon. Member does not realise is that this is a job which is placed on top of the ordinary, day-to-day work of our administration. It has to go on with its ordinary work as well. Most of these


rates need expert consideration. They have to be worked out by the staff over an above their ordinary work. When a Department has a special job—as the Home Office did—it can train a special staff and put them on the job immediately. There is no parallel between the two cases.
Now I come to retrospective payments. I accept that it is not necessarily a good argument to say that a thing has never been done before. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a good case for the fact that it might have been done in 1951, but I admit that the fact that it was not done then is no reason why a much better Government should not do it now if it were really necessary. But is it necessary?
Consider the position. The time since the last increase was made is still less than two years. It is a shorter time than between any two increases before, except for the adjusting operation in 1952. In the last increase the single rate went up by 15 per cent. Since then there has been an increase in the retail price index. We are now making an increase in rates of over 17 per cent. The point is that since the last increase there has only been an increase of 6 per cent. in prices and we are well ahead of the change since the last increase.
Nobody could represent this as an emergency. It is said that we are having an exceptionally hard winter, and that it would have been nice if the Government had been able to make these increases earlier. The hon. Lady said that this debate would not have taken place at all if the Government had made their decision in time, by which she means if they had made an increase in the benefits only eighteen months after the previous increase and brought in the new rates in anticipation—by a kind of meteorological wizardry—of a hard winter. Surely this argument cannot stand; and now we are told that we should make a kind of retrospective payment well after May because it has been a hard winter. This argument cannot stand.

Miss Herbison: Miss Herbison rose—

Mr. Macpherson: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady must recognise the implication of her argument. That is not what she said, but that was the implication of her argument. We are in this

position. We are providing an increase, as I said when I made the announcement, after the shortest interval since the previous increase, we are doing it as quickly as it has ever been done before, and we are hurrying on the unemployment and sickness benefit payments to an unprecedented extent, and I think that the Committee might be satisfied with the arrangements that we have made. I hope that it will be.

Miss Herbison: It was shocking misrepresentation to say that I had based my case on a bad winter. The Minister is continually telling us how much better off the old people are now, and at the end of his speech he did what his hon. Friend did. He tried to compare what we did five years after the war with what the Government are doing twenty years after it. We hear so much about the affluent society in this country. The very fact that the Government have had to announce increases in National Assistance shows that these basic rates are not sufficient. Therefore, irrespective of whether the winter had been a good or a bad one, there would have been a good case for our old people, particularly those who have no other income and must have recourse to National Assistance, to receive retrospective payments. I hope the Minister will accept that his misrepresentation was necessary to cover up the very bad case that he made.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Fifth Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

12.46 a.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In moving the Third Reading, I shall try not to take longer than the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would have done in similar circumstances. We have had two long days of argument in which we have disagreed about many things, but I think we all agree that the Bill will bring welcome benefits to 8¼ million people. I thank the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for his kind co-operation in helping us to get the Bill through Committee so quickly, and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) for being such a worthy


successor to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Neither of them will let any argument of my right hon. Friend or myself get away unscathed, and that, of course, is as it should be. I also thank the hon. Member for Sowerby for not moving two Amendments to which I would have replied. I am sure he will realise that the answers were on my usual theme of "No".
I shall not delay the House longer, but I promise that we shall do our best to speed the Bill on its way to bring benefits to 8¼ million people.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Houghton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her very kind references to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and myself.
I wish to thank the Minister especially warmly for his courtesy and the painstaking treatment of our complaints and criticisms. He has maintained a good temper throughout, sometimes under the lash—sometimes, I have no doubt he feels, under unjust criticism. It has been a pleasure to go through the Bill under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman. We also acknowledge the assistance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Lady is much too attractive to become a school ma'am type. She must use the word "nonsense" with great restraint when referring to the interjections which I make.
We welcome the Bill for what it does. It does a great deal, let us acknowledge that. We wish it had done more, but that, I suppose, is one of the congenital desires of all Oppositions. We had views on the adequacy of these benefits in present circumstances which we have expressed in the course of our debates in Committee. We hope now that the work will go on and that everything will be done in time. We on this side of the House do not wish to be associated with any criticism of members of the staff of the Ministry in doing their job. We think they will work hard and do a lot of overtime. I am sure that they will see the job through with their customary efficiency and promptitude. We should acknowledge our debt to them.
We must speed the Bill on its passage to another place and hope that it will reach the Statute Book in the time

scheduled by the Minister for the completion of all this work. I am sure that all the beneficiaries will be looking forward eagerly to the day when they will get the extra money.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CYPRUS (GIFT OF BOOKCASE AND GAVEL)

Resolution reported,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House, a bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books, together with a gavel, to the House of Representatives of Cyprus and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution agreed to.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue with amendments the provisions relating to the payment of Exchequer Equalisation and Transitional Grants to local authorities in Scotland and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.—[Mr. Leburn.]

12.50 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I must protest at this important matter being brought before the House at this time of the morning. We see an Under-Secretary approaching in silence the penitential stool. I notice that this is Money Resolution (No. 2). I want some information from the Government, and my desire for information is shared by my Scottish colleagues assembled behind me. [Laughter.] I am glad that the Leader of the House is with us, because this matter is pertinent to his duties as well. It will not be unknown to the Bill that this relates to a Bill which is presently in Committee. It is not customary to make anything but a passing reference to what happens in Committee, but it is unusual and strange that, the Committee having reached the debate on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," we should now be faced with a new Money Resolution, not one which replaces the first one, but one which adds to it and refers to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962.
The Money Resolution deals with a problem which has worried my hon. Friends and I as to what parliamentary authority the Government would have for certain moneys that were going to slip through the gripping hands of the Treasury into Scottish local authorities, particularly in a Bill which was meant to take money away from Scottish local authorities in relation to housing. We

have had no explanation from anybody. We have had no apology from the Government. There has obviously been an omission, an oversight, neglect, or just sheer incompetence. There is a considerable staff of Ministers at the Scottish Office. There is a Secretary of State whom we never see in Committee. There are three Under-Secretaries, one of whom is being snowed under by work at present. There are two Law Officers idling or dallying in Parliamentary idleness; they are not Members of the House.
I want to know how this mistake could have been made. Why has this happened? What does it do? My hon. Friends and I have been trying to unravel this, because there is no reference to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962, in the Bill presently in Committee. There is a reference to the 1954 Act in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962. In the 1962 Act there is a formula which depends upon equalisation grant. As the Bill deals with equalisation grant and the purpose of it is to reduce equalisation grant in respect of certain local authorities, I can only presume that this is the thing which has been omitted. It is passing strange that the Scottish Office could not remember that a Measure dealt with such a short time ago which contained a reference to equalisation grant would be affected by one which deals specifically with equalisation grant. If I am right, this relates to Section 3 of the 1962 Act and to the Second Schedule thereof. The purpose of that was more or less the same as this—to hit local authorities and to divide the sheep from the goats, giving some of them a much smaller subsidy and others a larger one.
A notional calculation was made about their rent income, a subtraction was made and if they had a deficit they would get a higher subsidy. Then, in a spirit of generosity, the Government decided that if that deficit was big enough they would get yet an additional subsidy. Bust that additional subsidy was calculated in relation to a formula which said that the deficit would be reduced by a sum which bore the same proportion to the deficit as the equalisation grant which they received bore to the relevant local expenditure. It is a very simple matter.
We had a list in last Friday's OFFICIAL REPORT of the local authorities to be


affected by a sum of the tune of£1 million. II the equalisation grant is to he reduced—that is to say, to reduce the sum to be deducted from the deficit—then what will be left will be a larger sum than otherwise would be left without the Measure before us. It could happen that, unknowingly and unthinking, a local authority in Scotland, unaware of this oversight of generosity on the part of the Government, might not get the additional subsidy.
I think that that is the purpose of this additional Money Resolution, because without it the Government have no power to pay or to meet the promise they made in the 1962 Act. I want to know why the Treasury missed it. Why did the Scottish Office miss it in relation to the Act which was passed so recently? After all, in the Scottish Committee we are considering a Bill. We have already passed the whole of the 1954 Act. In that Committee we have passed a Clause relating to that Act with our customary fairness and speed. I do not know why the Leader of the House should laugh at that remark. Is there any other Committee in the House which has so quickly approached Clause 3 of a Bill? And that despite the meaningless mystification of the Under-Secretary. Had he not made so many speeches we would probably have completed our consideration of the Bill by now.
In those proceedings so far not one Government supporter has spoken, mainly because they generally do not know what the Under-Secretary is talking about. I am discussing an important point tonight because we have passed the Clause which relates to the Bill which is affected by the Money Resolution which has come so belatedly. The least we can expect from the Government is an apology, an explanation as to how this all came about and an explanation of what will now be permitted, not just in relation to the point which the Government have in mind but to the possibilities which are now opened up to us for amending the 1962 Housing Act.
As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Money Resolution that limits us to any great extent as long as we relate it to the purposes of the Act. It refers to
…any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the

sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.
That being so, I must warn the Leader of the House that he should not expect to get this Bill from the Committee as quickly as we may have led him to believe, because here we have opened up the possibility of amending yet another Act of Parliament.
I want the Under-Secretary to tell us whether that is right, and to tell us, also, what sum of money is involved in this No. 2 Money Resolution for which he requires Parliamentary authority to pay. We shall certainly listen very anxiously to his extremely lucid explanation—and I hope that on this occasion he does not use a brief relating to a Measure of about four or five years ago, as he did the other day in the Scottish Committee.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: This is another example of the blundering ineptitude of the Government, and particularly of the Scottish Ministers. As my hon. Friend says, with about six or seven Ministers, it is asking us to tolerate a great deal when we are faced with the fact that the Government are unable to present a Money Resolution covering one of their Bills and so have to introduce a second one for that purpose.
I do not know whether it is just incompetence or whether it is not something rather clever. This seems to be a rather dangerous practice. The Scottish Committee has discussed Clause 1, which deals with the continuation of the 1954 Act, and in seeking to amend it we have been limited by the Financial Resolution passed by the House, and so have not been able to put down any Amendments that would have dealt with the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962. It is in order for the Government to put down Amendments which they can later cover by Financial Resolution, but it is not in order for the Opposition to put down Amendments not covered by the original Financial Resolution. Therefore, by adopting this method of introducing two separate Financial Resolutions the Government rob us of the opportunity of putting down Amendments dealing with the matter.
That is a very serious prospect. By this procedure, the Government could prevent the Opposition from putting down Amendments to a large part of the Bill. When we on this side were seeking method


of amending Clause 1 to the advantage of the people of Scotland, we came up against the Money Resolution.
The Money Resolution limited our efforts to benefit the people of Scotland. Now the Government introduce a Resolution to extend the original one, having robbed us of the opportunity of doing some good to the Bill. This is rather serious. It might have been done deliberately or it might have been sheer ineptitude. As I am always suspicious of the Government I am apt always to think the worst.

Mr. Ross: It might have been both.

Mr. Willis: Yes. It might have been done by somebody more cunning than the Ministers. The Treasury put down the Resolution and the people there may have been cleverer than the Scottish Ministers, and the responsible Ministers have not realised this. I agree that the Under-Secretary ought to apologise sincerely to the Committee and to Scottish Members not only for the inconvenience he has caused but for the opportunities of which he robbed us of amending Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is true that we may have the opportunity to do that and to use the Money Resolution on Report, but we have no certainty that the Amendments will be called, since rather tighter rules apply on Report than apply in Committee. I hope that the Under-Secretary is seized of the gravity of this matter and will not try to brush it off as something trivial. We do not regard it as trivial. We regard it as serious because it has interfered with our rights. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the injustice that he has done to the Opposition and the unfair manner in which he has treated us by this omission from the original Money Resolution.
We are, of course, glad that the Government have noticed the omission and are putting it right. I do not know how much this means to the local authorities. It probably means a small amount, but that has nothing to do with it. It is the principle that counts and not the amount involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in his reply will come clean about it and will give us some reassurance that steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence in future.

1.9 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Leburn): I should like to offer to you, Sir Robert, and to the Committee my apologies, first for inflicting this Money Resolution on the Committee at this very late hour. I should also like to offer my apologies to hon. Members that it should have been found necessary to put down this second Money Resolution. I offer these apologies in the most handsome way, but really this matter was not due to carelessness or ineptitude but to the fact that we are dealing with a rather remote thing. It was only when I considered putting down an Amendment to the Bill to help local authorities that the financial experts—although I take full responsibility for this—pointed out to me that what I proposed to do was not covered by the Money Resolution.
As I have been asked to explain the effects of this new Money Resolution, even though the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) clearly understand what is involved, perhaps I may do so. Its purpose is to ensure that the effect of Clause 3 of the Bill, under which a local authority may have its share of Exchequer equalisation grant reduced, is taken into account when applying the test of qualification for a supplementary subsidy under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962.
The amount of Exchequer equalisation grant received by a local authority affects the rate of supplementary subsidy which it is entitled to receive under the Second Schedule of the 1962 Act if its notional housing deficit is above a certain level. To give an example, where a qualifying authority's notional housing deficit exceeds a rate of 1s. 3d. but not 2s. 6d., it gets additional subsidy of£8 per house. In making this calculation, allowance has to be made for Exchequer equalisation grant received by the local authority. We want to ensure, however, that in doing that, due account is taken of any reduction of Exchequer equalisation grant under Clause 3 of the Bill. This is only fair to the local authorities.
When the point was brought to my attention, I wished to put down an Amendment to achieve that. It was at that point that the financial experts explained to me that it was not covered


by the Money Resolution. The effect of all this might be to increase the total of the housing subsidies—

Mr. Ross: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he would put down an Amendment to effect this? That is achieved by the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Leburn: No. I wanted to put down an Amendment to ensure that the local authorities were not losers in this matter if they had Exchequer equalisation grant deducted under Clause 3 because their rents were not reaching the standard which we are setting of gross annual value or 85 per cent. of gross annual value. They might then lose Exchequer equalisation grant. I did not want that operation to endanger the amount of supplementary housing subsidy which they might receive under the Second Schedule of the 1962 Act.

Mr. Ross: It could not do so.

Mr. Leburn: This procedure makes it easier for them. The hon. Member knows that the notional housing deficit is made up of two parts, the rateborne and Exchequer equalisation parts. If the latter were reduced because there had been a deduction by the Exchequer for low rents under Clause 3, the rateborne part would be the lower. Therefore, local authorities might not come in for supplementary payment or they might not qualify for£16 but only for£8, or for£24 instead of£16. Therefore, the effect of all this might be to increase the total of the housing subsidies paid under the 1962 Housing Act. But I agree that the amount is only marginal.
1.15 a.m.
The hon. Gentleman asked me how much it would cost. I have to tell him that we do not know and that we really cannot know, but we estimate that it will only be marginal. I have been advised, as I have explained to the Committee, that such an increase is not within the scope of the original Money Resolution and hence the supplementary Resolution, which would provide the necessary Parliamentary authority for what we are here considering tonight. I am sure that all hon. Members are in favour of this. Again I say that I apologise for the fact that it was not included in the original Money Resolution, and I hope that we can support it.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry about this, but I do not know whether my limited intelligence is at fault or whether it is the strange frankness of the Under-Secretary of State. There was no reason why it should be included in the original Money Resolution if the Bill as originally printed had no effect upon the matter. The Under-Secretary of State kept telling us that the need for this came out when he wanted to put down an Amendment. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, a Government do not relate their Money Resolutions when first put down in relation to a Bill which they have printed to an Amendment that they are going to put down later. In other words, if the hon. Gentleman is going to put down an Amendment later on he has no need to apologise but only to explain.
I do not know whether I am right about this—the hon. Gentleman can tell me tonight or later—but the hon. Gentleman's reading of the Second Schedule of the 1962 Act is certainly not my reading of it. The deduction that is made, the simple subtraction sum, is made in relation to the original determination as to whether the local authority gets the higher or the lower subsidy. If it gets the higher subsidy it is because there is a deficit, not a notional deficit. The word in the Statute is "deficit", and whether or not the local authority gets the increased subsidy is determined by what is called in the Second Schedule the "reduced deficit."
The reduced deficit is clearly defined as a deficit
less the amount which bears to that deficit the same proportion as the amount of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable to the local authority for the relevant financial year.

Mr. Leburn: My reading of the reduced deficit is that it is the notional deficit minus Exchequer equalisation grant. If I am wrong about this I will certainly explain it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: I will gladly read it to the hon. Gentleman. I have it here. It says:
the local authority's reduced deficit means the deficit referred to, in relation to the local authority, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section three of this Act less the amount which bears to that deficit the same proportion as the amount of the exchequer equalisation grant payable to the local authority for the


relevant financial year under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, bears to the authority's relevant local expenditure as certified by the Secretary of State to have been estimated under the said Act of 1954 according to the latest estimate made before the end of the relevant financial year.
That is the formula and that is the meaning of the reduced deficit. Then we proceed from that reduced deficit to find whether or not that fits in with the product of a 1s. 3d., a 2s. 6d. or a 3s. 9d. rate. What the Government are doing in the Bill as originally printed will, for certain local authorities, reduce what is going to be paid to them, and, by reducing that, they reduce one part of the known proportion, and so they determine that the proportion which bears the same relation is smaller. If one reduces the deficit by a smaller amount, one gives a local authority a better chance of qualifying for one of these increased subsidies. It is not a question of amending a Bill to do this. It is a question of what the Bill actually says. I shall watch eagerly and anxiously for the Amendment that the Under-Secretary of State said would be tabled. There is an Amendment, but it only adds to the financial Clause the very words that we have added to this Money Resolution.
I sincerely hope that, having learned the lesson of covering carefully all the implications of the matter, we shall not have a repetition of this sort of thing. Let us not have the Government telling us that right from the start they intended to be generous to local authorities and that this is the reason for the addition, and that it is purely an oversight. Indeed, if any Amendment goes down, it will probably be to ensure that the calculation will be related to the Exchequer equalisation grant that was originally thought to be payable, rather than that which actually will be paid after the Bill goes through. In other words, the local authorities will find themselves in exactly the same position after the Bill goes through as they were before, and they will not get this sudden and unexpected accretion of their possibilities of getting an additional subsidy.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what will happen, but that it will only be marginal. Yet he tells us that this is the objective, in order to

achieve which he was going to put down an Amendment. When he says he was going to put down an Amendment to achieve something, the effect of which he was ignorant, but that it would only be marginal, frankly I think he was talking nonsense at that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day.

PRISONS (STRAIT-JACKETS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: In 1961, on more than 100 occasions men and women in our prisons and borstals were placed in strait-jackets. More than half of the women suffering this treatment were young women inside our borstals. It is claimed by the Prison Commissioners that all those who have received what I regard as the ultimate outrage to human dighity were so treated at the direction of the prison medical service. It may well be that a handful of those so restrained subsequently had transfer directions made under the Mental Health Act, or perhaps were certified insane. But even if this proved to be the case, that every year so many are dealt with in this way is, in my view, inexcusable. In any self-respecting mental hospital today a strait-jacket would be regarded as a museum piece. Even a padded cell in a mental hospital is rarely used. These are days when a revolution has taken place in the field of mental health, when sedative drugs are readily available, when for the most part our hospitals have psychiatrists who can take nurses along with them in order to create a therapeutic team working towards a therapeutic community which ends the need completely of all mechanical restraint.
I believe, therefore, that we are entitled to ask: since the strait-jacket has, in effect, been abandoned in the mental hospitals, why is it that it is so persistently and extensively used throughout our prisons and borstals? What is worse is that it is being used for incredibly long periods of time. For example, in what prison and for what reason was one prisoner last year placed in a strait-jacket for a total of 47¾ hours punctuated only by one break of one hour after 24 hours? Why were sedatives not given in such a case, if such action was, indeed, really necessary? Was this gaol near a mental hospital? Were any outside psychiatrists called upon if the prison medical service could not immediately provide one? Surely in this day and age there can be little or no excuse for keeping a man as long as this in such a condition?
I am aware that there are other examples equally unsatisfactory in their complexion. I heard yesterday from the prison welfare committee in Warwickshire—the Society of Friends—of a case in which the strait-jacket was put on so tightly that the man was bleeding. I am informed by the society that the man was left in this condition—in the strait-jacket and bleeding—for over 24 hours.
It is highly unsatisfactory that every year young women in our borstals are being trussed up like chickens for hours on end, and it is particularly unsatisfactory when we find that the strait-jacket was used in 1961 almost 10 times more on women than in 1959 or in 1960.
The law insists that every effort should be made to avoid recourse to this type of restraint. I want to know whether the law is being carried out behind the prison bars or whether strait-jackets are being used as a means of unlawful punishment against refractory prisoners. If the Under-Secretary denies this and says that no one is put into a strait-jacket except for medical reasons and that the decision is one for the prison medical officer's professional judgment, why is it that there is a gap between the practice and judgment of those with psychiatric experience and qualifications inside the National Health Service and those doctors who are without this experience and are certainly, as we know from the composition of the prison medical service, lamentably without the necessary psychiatric qualifications and are on such a wide scale lacking even any diploma in psychological medicine?
At this time I am aware that, albeit belatedly, a study is being conducted into the future of the prison medical service, but the misgiving of which this straitjacket business forms parts shows that a clandestine, inter-departmental study, even if it is being assisted by two distinguished outside professors, is not enough. There are well founded beliefs that the hierarchical structure and insulation of the prison medical service from the National Health Service is leading to blunders of which these scores of people being placed annually in these straitjackets form but a part.
Because of the feelings on matters such as the one I raise tonight, if any confidence is to be felt in the result of the


study—to which, to allay any suspicions, I anticipate the hon. and learned Gentleman wilt refer—then at least the study should become a full inquiry with opportunities for outside bodies and outside witnesses to give evidence and, further, the report of such an inquiry should be made public.
When there are suspicions of the kind I am raising abroad, and when there are responsible bodies ready and anxious to give evidence to an inquiry, I ask why the Home Secretary has so far refused to permit the present study to become a full scale enquiry. A number of responsible people have been in prison—because, for example, of their unilateralist views—and I understand that they, too, have important evidence which they wish to give. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why these outside bodies and witnesses are not getting this opportunity. What has the Home Office to conceal? It should surely be ready, when it has complaints of the kind I am raising, to seek for all constructive advice.
I recall that in 1959 I had occasion, in the course of my professional work, to visit a prisoner I was defending on a murder charge. He was mentally sick and was subsequently found guilty but insane. I was shocked to find that, before my arrival, he had been placed, in two different prisons, at Bristol and at Cardiff, in a strait-jacket. The first period was for 20 hours 45 minutes and the second for 21 hours 40 minutes. I believed then, as I do now, that only ignorance and psychiatric illiteracy caused that wretched man to be so used.
I myself spent some considerable time subsequently in the cells or in the prison hospital with him, both alone and with a psychiatrist, and, of course, at no time did I have any apprehension whatsoever. The fact is that fear and aggression on the part of the jailers mobilised violence on the part of the prisoner that understanding would never, never have provoked.
One of the prisons in which this man was incarcerated—at Cardiff—is only a few miles from a mental hospital with a battery of psychiatrists who certainly would have dealt with the man and, indeed, the prison officers without a strait-jacket ever being used. But as a consequence of protocol and the unfor-

tunate isolation of the prison medical service from outside mental health services, no contact was ever established with that mental hospital, which meant that this unfortunate man had to spend more than 42 hours like a trapped animal.
I believe it is time that the Prison Medical Service was overhauled and that there was an intelligent ebb and flow between doctors inside our prisons and those within the National Health Service. I hope that the study which is apparently now being made will be conducted with speed, that it will take outside evidence and that it will speedily make its recommendations. But I also hope that in the meantime steps will be taken to scrutinise with care, and increasing care, any case, whether in prison or in borstal, where it is claimed that the use of a strait-jacket was necessary.

1.35 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): The pattern of the restraint jacket approved by the Secretary of State for use in prisons and borstals is officially described as a "loose canvas restraint jacket". I shall refer to them simply as jackets.
The use of any kind of restraint jacket is repugnant to my right hon. Friend, and, I am sure, 'to the doctors of the prison medical service, but in present conditions it is sometimes found necessary. Standing Orders, of which there is a copy in the Library, make it clear that
the use of mechanical restraints is always undesirable and every effort must be made to avoid recourse to them. They are to be used only when they are strictly necessary.
In the safeguards, which are numerous, before they can be used, it is made clear that they will be used only on medical grounds and not, as is sometimes suggested, as a form of unlawful punishment, and on the authority in writing of the medical officer. Every case must be recorded and reported, and the authority of a member of the visiting committee or board of visitors must be obtained.
If it is necessary to keep the jacket on for longer than twenty-four hours, after it has been kept on for twenty-four hours it must be taken off for at least one hour before being re-applied, and there must be other short temporary


breaks as far as practicable. A prisoner under restraint must be visited by the governor at least twice in twenty-four hours, and by the medical officer at least twice, and more frequently as may be necessary. He must be observed by an officer at least every fifteen minutes.
The figures show that the staff have taken these instructions to heart. The daily average population of men's prisons and borstals in 1961 was about 28.000, representing over 10 million man days of custody. Since the number of occasions on which a jacket was used, as I said in my Answer to a Question recently, was 86 in 1961, on eight of which the restraint was continued for part of a second day, the incidence of the use of the jacket was as 94 is to 10 million.
As regards females. I was unaware that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise this, and I must confess that I am not provided with the information. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know the true information, and I shall publicise it as best I can because I am very surprised at the information he has given to the House.
It has been argued that some or all of the occasions could have been avoided, but, in view of the proportion I have given, it cannot be said that this measure is freely resorted to, or indeed that its use in practice reflects any neglect of the stringent Standing Order to which I have referred.
Conditions in prisons, particularly in overcrowded prisons, as I regret they are today, lead to tensions which lead to violence. A local prison must receive everyone the courts commit to it, a heterogeneous flood consisting mostly of ordinary law breakers who are suffering from no mental disorder. It includes, however, some who are so suffering but attempt to conceal it, and others who are not so suffering but have everything to gain by pretending that they are.
In the majority of prisons the prison medical officer called to treat a prisoner who is being violent by reason of mental disturbance—and I would emphasise that in no other case does the use of a restraint jacket come into question—will not necessarily have the same experience of dealing with violence by sedation as the staffs of the mental hospitals with

whom the hon. Gentleman has drawn a comparison.
Some immediate action is required to prevent the prisoner from injuring himself or others or creating a disturbance, which in a prison, could have serious consequences. Every effort is made to quieten the prisoner without recourse to mechanical restraints, including the use of sedation if the prisoner can be induced to accept it. But in a small proportion of cases the choice must be between mechanical restraint and the injection of a drug into a resisting prisoner. This choice is a matter for the professional judgment of the individual doctor. I can, of course, express only a layman's point of view, but I can well understand that a doctor who does not have the resources of a mental hospital immediately at hand, may reluctantly prefer the alternative of a mechanical restraint, repugnant as it is, to the risk to the patient—broken needles and so on—involved in the administration of a drug to a violently resisting subject in the conditions then existing. There is a very great difference between a mental hospital and a prison. In a mental hospital there is no question of the patient's consent being given to sedation if he is compulsorily detained. If he is a voluntary patient he can refuse his consent by walking out, but in the case of a prisoner who objects to an injection, it is exposing the doctor to the obvious dangers of an action for assault if he nevertheless, in spite of the prisoner refusing his consent, proceeds to inject him.

Mr. Abse: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is not an assault to put a strait-jacket on a man? How does he distinguish between the administering of a drug, which he says constitutes an assault, and the putting on of a strait-jacket? Surely equally both of them are done without the consent of the patient? Surely his argument that the mental condition of the man is different from that of the mental patient falls to the ground, since I understood that the only reason the jacket would be put on would be the mental condition of the gaoled man.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: A man of such violence is prima facie in a mentally disturbed condition, but it is a much more serious matter to inject someone


with a drug against his consent than to put him in a restraint jacket. The restraint jacket comes off, but once one starts injecting people with drugs against their will the consequences, as the hon. Member will appreciate, must be very serious indeed. There is all the world of difference, I submit, in these two methods of overcoming the resistance of a violent prisoner.
Power exists, of course, under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, to transfer a prisoner suffering from mental disorder of a certain nature and degree, to a hospital, and this is always considered in appropriate cases. This procedure, however, involves at least some delay and affords no opportunity of immediate measures, yet the prisoner must be quietened as soon as possible in the prison where he happens to be. No one pretends that this situation is satisfactory, nor do I claim that the measures we have in hand will provide a complete solution. That only experience can show. But substantial measures are being taken to improve the situation in which this unavoidable necessity arises and I shall mention sonic of them.
Before doing so perhaps I should deal with the individual cases which the hon. Member has mentioned. He was kind enough to notify me yesterday, or the day before, that he would raise the question of the prisoner, mentioned in my Answer to a recent Question, who was under restraint for a continuous period of forty-seven hours with temporary breaks. I sent to the prison concerned for the original papers of the case referred to. These papers were examined on their arrival in London today and it was found that when the information was collected from prisons for the purposes of the Answer there was a clerical error, namely confusion between a.m. and p.m., in the reports supplied on this prisoner, who was in fact kept in a jacket not for forty-seven but for thirty-five hours. My original Answer, therefore, was incorrect, and I apologise to the hon. Member and to the House.
At the same time I should like for the completion of the story to make clear that there were in fact in 1961 two prisoners who were kept in a jacket for just over forty-six hours. The first case

was that of a prisoner who inflicted an injury on himself by cutting his right forearm with a razor. He was placed in a jacket in order to prevent his injuring himself further, and was given eight partial releases of periods from 10–20 minutes, as well as the continuous total release of one hour, 24 hours after being placed in the jacket, as required by Standing Orders.
The other case was one of a prisoner who was fighting and struggling and attempting to attack others. He was placed in a jacket for the protection of others and was given a similar number of temporary releases, as well as the total release of one hour required by Standing Orders. The medical officer, in the second case, considered that the prisoner's mental disorder might be of such a nature and degree as to justify his transfer to hospital under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act. However, an outside psychiatrist, called in consultation in accordance with the prescribed procedure, decided that there was not sufficient justification for him to make a recommendation for transfer to hospital. In both cases the regulation requiring the authority of a member of the Board of Visitors to be obtained for retention longer than 24 hours was complied with.
I cannot mention the case the hon. Gentleman raised on behalf of the Society of Friends concerning someone who had been in a jacket for 24 hours and was said to be bleeding. I will look into the case if the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the name. I should very much like to check up on it, as from what the hon. Gentleman tells me, particularly the aspect of bleeding, it seems to me to be highly improbable. However, I will certainly go into the case if the hon. Gentleman will give me further particulars.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the working party which my right hon. Friend has set up including representatives from the Ministry of Health as well as from outside the public service to study the work of the prison medical service in relation to that of the National Health Service with the object of securing that prisoners in need of medical treatment receive the benefit of the best methods available. Although I am sure that this is a good step to take, I hope that nothing which has been said tonight will be taken by any of the prison medical staffs as in


any way reflecting on the high sense of duty with which they carry out their responsibilities, often under very difficult conditions. My right hon. Friend and I fully recognise that prison medical officers are second to none in their zeal for the welfare of their patients and their devotion to the highest standards of the profession.
The working party is composed primarily of Government servants, and it is, I think, without any sort of precedent that its report should be published as requested by the hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, it is receiving and hopes to receive further evidence from outside bodies—the Royal Medico-psychological Association, the National Association of Mental Health and the British Medical Association. It is understood that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and the Howard League for Penal Reform will submit evidence. The working Party has decided to ask a number of outside bodies—the Royal Medico-psychological Association and others—whom it considers have particular knowledge and a special contribution to make to appear before it and tell it what they can of this very difficult subject. I think that this is a most valuable endeavour and one which we all hope will be speedily completed.
I conclude by saying a word or two about the practice of restraint in the world as a whole and in the prison world. It is interesting to look for a brief moment at the circumstances in other countries. The standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners adopted by the United Nations in 1955 specifically mention restraint jackets as one of the instruments of restraint whose use is contemplated. The rules in this country restrict the use of restraints far more than the United Nations rules require. In many particulars the safeguards are greater than those set down by these standards. I would not claim to be fully informed as to the exact practice regarding the use of mechanical restraints in all other countries, but I am informed that in a number of countries in Europe, including some Scandinavian countries, physical restraints may be applied to prisoners suffering from mental disturbance. In these countries I understand that a jacket is not used but that the restraint takes the form of a special bed

with a body-belt and anklets attached to it.
There is obviously room for differences of view as to what pattern of restraint is most suitable, if physical restraints are to be used at all; but the loose jacket used here, horrible though it may be, is far less restrictive to the prisoner than the form of restraint I mentioned a few minutes ago where the lower part of the body is actually tied down to the bed.

Mr. Abse: Our mental hospitals are also very overcrowded. Instead of making comparisons with what may be going on in other parts of the world, why do not the prison medical officers endeavour to gain experience and understanding from mental hospitals, because those qualities are certainly applied in every progressive mental hospital, where even without sedation it is possible to handle these patients, except in a very small proportion of cases, without resort to any of these barbaric and, in my view, mediaeval practices which are more reminiscent of Bedlam than of a decent mental hospital?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have tried to point out that the conditions under which those in mental hospitals work are totally different from those obtaining in prisons. The hon. Gentleman says that only a small proportion of cases in mental hospitals needs to be dealt with in this way. The same is true as to prisons. The figure of 86 out of a total population of about 30.000 shows that only on a minute number of occasions is this necessary. I do not accept the view that it would be, certainly in the present state of the system and of the law, correct to advise that laymen such as the Prison Commissioners should instruct or advise prison medical officers in what way they should carry out their duties, namely that they should forcibly inject violent prisoners, because that must be a matter for the medical men themselves and not a matter for the laity to instruct them about. To instruct doctors on how they are to do this—because this sort of restraint can be used only on medical grounds—would be a gross interference with the professional standing and duty of the medical profession. They will not do it at present. They say that it would be wrong to inject a violently resisting prisoner against his will. If that


cannot be done, some other method must be found.
I believe that this method, repugnant though it is, in fact does less damage to the prisoner. Certainly so far as we know, no permanent damage is done, whereas the injection of a violent prisoner might do very serious immediate physical damage. To advance the theory that doctors are entitled to inject people

against their will would open up a very dangerous line of argument.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Two o'clock.